Harris Blames Biden Aides for Suppressing Record, Regrets Rogan Snub
The Diary Of A CEO
Former Vice President Kamala Harris asserts that White House staffers operating under a zero-sum mindset intentionally sabotaged her public profile to protect Joe Biden.
## Background
Published on YouTube by The Diary Of A CEO on October 30, 2025, this video features Vice President Kamala Harris breaking her silence following the 2024 presidential election. According to the page description, Harris discusses her bestselling memoir '107 Days', the moment she went into shock after her election loss, internal dynamics within the Biden administration, her decision to skip Joe Rogan's podcast, and her perspective on the state of the nation under Donald Trump.
## TL;DR
In a candid, wide-ranging interview, Kamala Harris reflects on the intense 107-day presidential campaign and the profound shock of her election night loss. She speaks openly about her complex relationship with President Joe Biden, internal White House staff friction, and strategic campaign decisions, including missing the opportunity to appear on *The Joe Rogan Experience*. Harris outlines her grave concerns regarding the Trump administration's policies on healthcare, education, and the economy, while sharing personal reflections on her legal career, her husband Doug Emhoff's support, and the lasting influence of her late mother.
## Atmosphere & style
The conversation carries an intimate, contemplative, and unvarnished mood, bridging high-stakes political analysis with deep personal vulnerability. Host Steven Bartlett adopts an empathetic yet probing interviewing style, creating a space where Harris shifts comfortably between humorous anecdotes, sharp policy critiques, and poignant moments of grief. Watching the interview feels like a rare peek behind the political curtain, moving from tense accounts of campaign pressure to reflective, emotionally grounded memories of family and public service.
## Key takeaways
- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=0s) Vice President Kamala Harris describes feeling let down and frustrated by President Joe Biden during the campaign, particularly highlighting an unhelpful, self-centered phone call from him on the morning of her high-stakes debate with Donald Trump.
- [02:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=142s) Reflecting on the 2024 election outcome, Harris shares that she remains deeply concerned about the future of the nation, cautioning people that conditions may get worse before they improve under the current administration.
- [05:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=318s) Harris credits her legal career and lifelong drive for public service to her immigrant parents, who instilled in her a strong duty to protect marginalized people and fight for civil rights.
- [16:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=995s) Addressing imposter syndrome, Harris reframes it as healthy humility for public servants and stresses the importance of never allowing external limitations to define one's potential.
- [36:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2187s) Harris explains that internal White House dynamics operated on a 'zero-sum game' mentality, where presidential staffers suppressed her accomplishments out of fear that elevating the Vice President would weaken the President.
- [01:01:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3699s) Regarding campaign strategy, Harris expresses genuine regret over not appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience, explaining that internal scheduling logic and time tradeoffs ultimately led to skipping the interview.
- [01:10:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4248s) On election night, Harris experienced a profound state of shock—comparing the grief directly to the loss of her mother—when campaign staff informed her they were short by 200,000 unrecoverable votes.
- [01:15:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4545s) Harris warns that Donald Trump's victory is the result of a coordinated, multi-decade conservative strategy spearheaded by organizations like the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, which Democrats must address strategically.
- [01:19:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4765s) To revitalize Democratic policy and engage younger voters, Harris advocates for direct economic relief for working families, acknowledging past missteps with innovators like Elon Musk, and proposing to lower the voting age to 16.
- [01:07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4029s) While leaving the door open for a potential 2028 presidential bid, Harris emphasizes that any decision will require weighing the personal and family toll against her ability to deliver meaningful national leadership.
- [01:40:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=6026s) Following her concession speech at Howard University, Harris and her husband Doug Emhoff retreated to Hawaii to process the sudden emotional loss and sudden departure from high-stakes campaign adrenaline.
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=0s) Teaser: Reflections on the 2024 Election and Joe Biden
In a brief preview opening the interview, Vice President Kamala Harris reflects on her relationship with President Joe Biden during the intense weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign. She speaks candidly about feeling let down and frustrated at critical moments, recalling a phone call from Biden on the morning of her high-stakes debate with Donald Trump that felt completely unnecessary and self-centered. Host Steven Bartlett probes into her perspective on Biden's motivations, asking if she believed he genuinely wanted her to win, while Harris emphasizes that she has plenty to say about the experience. She acknowledges having no regrets about running, though she deeply regrets not having more time to make her case to the American people.
Turning to the broader dynamics of the campaign, Harris addresses the pivotal debate between Biden and Trump that preceded her nomination, describing it as a "car crash" and noting that it was clear Biden was struggling and didn't want to be there. She also touches on strategic missteps, expressing regret that her team did not do an interview on *The Joe Rogan Experience* due to internal gamesmanship. Recounting election night, Harris details falling into a profound state of shock—a heavy, overwhelming grief comparable only to the loss of her mother—as she grappled with what a Trump victory meant for the nation's future.
---
[02:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=142s) Current State of Mind and the State of the Nation
Steven Bartlett opens the formal conversation by asking Harris how she is holding up in the aftermath of the election. She responds that, all things considered, she and her family are well and in good health, but she remains deeply troubled by the trajectory of the United States and the broader world. Describing the climate as one filled with widespread anxiety, Harris shares that she frequently cautions people that "it may get worse before it gets better."
She notes that as she travels on her book tour, breaking news repeatedly confirms her worst expectations about the current administration. While she acknowledges that many actions by the administration feel unpredictable to the public, she points out that much of it aligns precisely with what she had predicted during the campaign.
- **Book Title:** *107 Days: A Memoir of a Campaign That Made History* (released September 2025).
- **Public Sentiment:** Harris emphasizes that many Americans are living in fear of being targeted with hate or overwhelmed by deliberate misinformation.
---
[03:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=216s) Weight of Responsibility and the 107-Day Campaign
When asked if she feels a heavy burden of personal responsibility given that she had a 107-day window to potentially alter the course of American history, Harris admits to frequently reflecting on how different the outcome could have been. She describes the pain of watching vulnerable populations suffer under current policies and living in climate-driven or political fear.
Despite these heavy reflections, Harris explains that she makes a conscious effort not to linger in "what ifs." She prioritizes staying centered in the present rather than becoming consumed by regret, though she readily acknowledges the profound starkness between her vision for the country and its current reality.
---
[05:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=318s) Upbringing and Family Roots
Tracing the origins of her drive for public service, Harris points to her parents and the activism that surrounded her childhood. Her mother arrived in the United States from India alone at age 19, quickly immersing herself in the Civil Rights Movement in Berkeley and Oakland, California. There, she met Harris's father, a national scholar from Jamaica.
Growing up in the East Bay, Harris and her younger sister, Maya, were immersed in an environment focused on fighting for civil rights, equality, and justice. From an early age, her parents instilled in her a fundamental sense of duty—that her existence mattered and that she was obligated to actively participate in making society better.
- **Mother:** Shyamala Gopalan, arrived from India at 19 to study at UC Berkeley.
- **Father:** Donald J. Harris, a Jamaican-born scholar and economist.
- **Sister:** Maya Harris.
---
[06:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=404s) The First Date with Doug Emhoff and the Drive to Protect
Bartlett shares that during a conversation with Harris's husband, Doug Emhoff, Emhoff fondly recalled their very first date, where Harris made it clear that her life's work was centered on helping and protecting others. Harris laughs, confirming her deep love for Emhoff and describing him as hilarious, while highlighting the contrast in their early careers. While Emhoff pursued a lucrative path in private law practice, Harris was never drawn to monetary gain, choosing public service to advocate for marginalized people.
She attributes her instinct to protect others partly to birth order. As the elder child, her mother charged her from the age of two with looking out for her sister, Maya. Additionally, witnessing her mother—a 5-foot-tall brown woman with a distinct accent—face prejudice reinforced Harris's commitment to ensuring every individual's dignity is respected.
---
[08:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=523s) Career Achievements as Prosecutor and Attorney General
Reviewing her legal career, Bartlett outlines her rise from age 24 to 51, progressing from a deputy district attorney to California's Attorney General, breaking barriers as the first woman and first Black person to hold both roles. During her tenure as California's top law enforcement officer, she oversaw major systemic reforms, secured **$25 billion** for homeowners affected by the 2008 foreclosure crisis, launched the "Back on Track" rehabilitation program, and made California the first state to mandate body-worn cameras for state law enforcement agents.
Harris explains that her tendency to constantly problem-solve means she rarely stops to celebrate achievements; once a challenge is met, she immediately moves on to the next.
- **Relief Secured:** $25 billion for California homeowners post-2008 financial crash.
- **Reforms Introduced:** "Back on Track" re-entry initiative and pioneering statewide body-camera mandates for justice agents.
---
[09:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=559s) Facing Human Darkness and Handling High-Pressure Cases
Discussing the emotional toll of her early legal career, Harris recalls her time specializing in child sexual assault cases, which exposed her to the darkest aspects of human behavior. She vividly remembers a heartbreaking case involving a very young elementary school girl who was too traumatized to testify effectively.
Harris describes going into a courthouse bathroom and weeping, knowing the jury would likely not have sufficient evidence to convict the perpetrator. Despite the profound grief caused by seeing society fail to protect vulnerable children, she carried that emotional weight through prosecuting homicides, major fraud, and high-profile public cases.
---
[11:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=666s) Stress Management and Personal Standards
When asked how she copes with relentless pressure—from courtroom battles to presidential campaigns—Harris reveals that her primary coping mechanism is daily physical exercise. She makes it a strict rule to work out every single morning, regardless of how few hours of sleep she has had, finding it essential for keeping her mind, body, and spirit grounded.
She acknowledges that while the scale of pressure has increased over time, her internal sense of personal responsibility has remained constant. Characterizing herself as a perfectionist, she admits that even during the intense 107-day presidential campaign, she spent every night awake analyzing what more she could have accomplished during that single day.
---
[12:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=765s) Kamala at 25 vs. Kamala Today
Comparing her current self to her 25-year-old self starting out as a young prosecutor, Harris notes that her younger self was utterly "fearless" and refused to take "no" for an answer. She recalls an early Friday evening in court when she noticed a female defendant with young children at home was about to be kept in jail over the weekend due to court court-closing logistics; Harris aggressively pressured the judge to re-take the bench to ensure the woman wasn't separated from her family.
While that persistence remains a core trait, Harris notes that age and experience have taught her to accept that you cannot change everyone. Understanding where her energy is most effectively spent has allowed her to become a more efficient leader without becoming jaded.
---
[15:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=910s) Deciding to Run for President
Harris recalls that the idea of running for President of the United States first took root while she was serving in the U.S. Senate. Unlike politicians who grew up imagining themselves in the Oval Office, the thought had not occurred to her until a friend brought it up during a casual dinner with Doug at a local restaurant, telling her, "You should run for president."
The idea germinated from there, and her experience as Vice President—meeting with over 150 world leaders, negotiating critical international policy, and spending countless hours in the Situation Room—gave her full confidence that she possessed the knowledge and experience to lead the country.
---
[16:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=995s) Imposter Syndrome and the Polling Trap
Addressing imposter syndrome, Harris reflects on winning her first political election as District Attorney of San Francisco. She launched her campaign polling at just **6%** against an established incumbent, proving the pollsters wrong through sheer determination.
She argues that what people often label as "imposter syndrome" can actually be a healthy sense of humility. For anyone entrusted with public power, she emphasizes, recognizing that the role is about serving the public rather than personal ego is essential.
[018:11] Overcoming Impostor Syndrome and External Limitations
Addressing how higher positions expose the reality behind seemingly "untouchable" figures, Kamala Harris notes that advancement reveals how "everyone's got a little dust on them" and that "not everyone's shiny." While recognizing this can be liberating by removing self-imposed ceilings, she stresses that individuals must contend not only with internal doubts but also with strong external signals telling them they do not belong.
When mentoring others, Harris advises: "Don't ever limit yourself based on other people's limited ability to see who you are." Host Steven Bartlett points to a photo posted by LeBron James illustrating past U.S. Vice Presidents—all of whom share a similar demographic profile—to show how pattern recognition can make people feel excluded. Harris adds that the broader challenge lies in navigating both self-imposed limits and the restrictive perceptions of others.
* **Key Mentorship Advice:** Never accept external limitations based on someone else's inability to see your full capacity.
* **Reframing Status:** Entering high-level rooms reveals that even powerful figures are human and flawed.
---
[021:11] Walking Into the Room: Mindset, Role Models, and Dignity
Recalling moments early in her career when people assumed she was waiting for her boss, Harris details the mental tools she uses to navigate environments where she represents the unfamiliar. She advises walking into every courtroom or boardroom with "chin up, shoulders back," remembering the countless people outside the room who are proud and relying on you to use your voice. At the same time, she cautions against entering with the baseline assumption that your value will automatically be dismissed.
To ground herself, Harris draws strength from personal figures, including her first-grade teacher, Mrs. Francis Wilson—who later attended her law school graduation—and her mother, who taught her: "Don't you ever let anyone tell you who you are, you tell them who you are." She emphasizes that societal strength comes from convincing children early on that they are special and backing that belief up with real resources. Moving to the topic of professional presence, she notes the importance of structured, logical speech and acknowledges that physical presentation remains a real factor in first impressions. Reflecting on her upbringing in the Black church, she views dressing up as an expression of self-respect, dignity, and reverence for the space one occupies.
- **Key Personal Influences:** Mrs. Francis Wilson (first-grade teacher present at her law school graduation) and her mother.
- **Advice on Speech and Demeanor:** Deconstruct complex issues mentally before speaking to communicate clearly and logically without rushing.
- **Professional Dignity:** Dressing well and arriving punctually serve as essential baseline displays of self-respect and character.
---
[027:57] Leaving the 2019 Primary and Joining the Biden Ticket
Addressing her 2019 presidential run, which began in January and ended in December of that year, Harris plainly states that the primary reason she withdrew from the race was that "mostly we ran out of money." The campaign dynamic shifted dramatically during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when she received a FaceTime call from democratic nominee Joe Biden asking her to be his running mate.
The selection process leading up to that call involved high secrecy and intense vetting. Harris describes a clandestine interview in Washington, D.C., where her assistant drove her to a shopping mall so she could switch cars unnoticed by the press corps waiting outside her apartment. Driven via a circuitous route to a hidden house with drawn shades, she completed her interview. On the day Biden officially called to offer her the spot, she was preparing a large batch of marinara sauce to freeze using fresh end-of-summer tomatoes gifted by a friend in Virginia. Moments after she accepted, campaign aides wearing masks arrived at her apartment carrying stacks of binders to launch the campaign; to avoid wasting food, she handed out containers of homemade sauce to each staffer as they left.
- **2019 Campaign Exit:** Primary factor was running out of campaign funds in December 2019.
- **The VP Interview Process:** Involved a 9-hour deep-dive interview with a lawyer interrogating her taxes, professional history, and background, which she humorously compares to a virtual "colonoscopy."
- **Selection Criteria:** Final VP selection ultimately comes down to interpersonal chemistry and trust once the initial shortlist of ~3 candidates passes strict vetting.
---
[032:09] The Vice Presidency and Internal Dynamic Disagreements
Reflecting on the unique nature of serving as the 49th Vice President of the United States—and the first woman in the role—Harris notes that no experience fully prepares someone for being second-in-command. She credits President Jimmy Carter for reshaping the modern vice presidency by moving Walter Mondale into the West Wing and delegating serious national security and diplomatic duties to ensure seamless succession.
Turning to the internal dynamics discussed in her book *107 Days: A Memoir of a Campaign That Made History*, Harris addresses the structural tension between presidential and vice-presidential staffs. She notes a long-standing White House political lore where outgoing chiefs of staff warn incoming ones: "Rule number one, watch the vice president." Having previously competed against Joe Biden in the primaries, she was acutely aware of needing to continuously prove her loyalty. She describes how the president's inner circle allowed negative narratives to fester rather than utilizing their vast communications apparatus to defend her against unfair media attacks, calling the decision "counterproductive" to the administration's collective success.
- **Historical Precedent:** President Jimmy Carter established the modern VP role by placing Walter Mondale in the West Wing with expanded operational duties.
- **White House Staff Dynamics:** Presidential staff often view the Vice President as a potential political threat, sometimes declining to deploy defensive media resources during public attacks.
- **Memoir Insights:** Details from *107 Days* highlight how internal political self-preservation inside White House circles can undermine broader administrative unity.
[36:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2187s) The Zero-Sum Game of White House Staffers
The dynamic inside the White House created a difficult environment where internal politics undermined public perception. Kamala Harris explains that staff under President Joe Biden operated under a "zero-sum game" mindset, believing that for the President to shine, the Vice President had to be dimmed. This provincial and shortsighted approach actively suppressed her accomplishments, as staffers were cautious about letting her profile rise too high. Steven Bartlett notes reading page 47 of her memoir, *107 Days*, which details how her achievements were rarely promoted, leaving the public largely unaware of her track record. Harris shares that this effort to keep her "in her place" was both painful and deeply frustrating, not only for her but for the team and supporters who knew her leadership credibility.
* **Book Mentioned:** *107 Days: A Memoir of a Campaign That Made History* (specifically references to pages 47 and 51).
* **Key Concept:** The "zero-sum game" mentality among presidential staffers, where lifting the Vice President was viewed as weakening the President.
---
[38:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2304s) "He Greatly Disappointed Me": The Debate Day Phone Call
Reflecting on her personal relationship with Joe Biden, Harris describes it as warm yet undeniably complicated. While they remain on good terms—noting he had called her just two days prior to wish her a happy birthday—she admits to moments where he deeply disappointed and angered her. She points to a specific incident on the morning of her presidential debate against Donald Trump. After finishing an exhausting period in "debate camp"—which included mock debates with a staffer named Philippe, who wore orange makeup and a long red tie to stay in character as Trump—she was getting her hair and makeup done alongside her husband, Doug Emhoff.
```
Debate Preparation Process:
[Debate Camp Sequestering] ➔ [Mock Debates w/ Philippe as Trump] ➔ [Team Pep Talk] ➔ [Hair & Makeup w/ Doug] ➔ [The Morning Call]
```
Expecting an encouraging pep talk when Biden called her hotel room, Harris was stunned when he instead brought up a group of people in Pennsylvania who were allegedly saying bad things about her because they heard she had been speaking negatively about him. Hanging up the phone, Harris felt angry at the unnecessary distraction right before one of the highest-stakes moments of her career. She realized his focus in that moment was entirely self-centered rather than on supporting her performance. Despite this, she believes Biden ultimately wanted her to win the election, if only because she was the sole candidate who would preserve his political legacy.
* **Debate Prep Role:** Philippe played mock Donald Trump during debate camp and strictly stayed in character.
* **Key Detail:** The call took place in a hotel room where Harris was with her husband, Doug Emhoff, on the morning of her debate with Trump.
* **Context:** Beyond Harris, the only two people who have ever debated Donald Trump on a presidential stage are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
---
[45:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2713s) Watching Biden's Debate from LA
Harris recalls the pivotal debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, which she watched from a hotel room at the Fairmont in Los Angeles surrounded by a tight group of trusted aides. Having ordered pizza for the team, she was taking vigorous notes to prepare for four media interviews scheduled immediately following the debate. Prior to the event, Biden had called her from his own debate camp, and she could tell something was off. She strongly believes Biden was talked into doing the debate and did not truly want to be there, which directly impacted his performance.
Watching the live broadcast unfold was deeply unsettling. While minor errors or statistic mix-ups are standard in any debate, this event quickly turned into what Steven Bartlett describes as a "historic car crash." Harris observed a rare moment where Donald Trump actually moderated his own posture because Biden was visibly struggling with his articulation and delivery.
* **Location:** Fairmont Hotel in Los Angeles, California.
* **Post-Debate Duty:** Harris had four televised interviews scheduled immediately after the debate to defend and represent the administration.
---
[49:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2954s) Debating Trump, Mocking the "Cats and Dogs" Rumor, and Misdirection
Describing her own head-on debate with Donald Trump, Harris details the psychological preparation required to face him. Upon taking the stage and shaking his hand, she walked back to her podium—which contained an empty notepad—and drew a smiley face as a personal reminder to have fun. In high-stakes debates, she notes, the candidate who is genuinely enjoying themselves and seeing the humor in the situation usually wins, whereas the opponent ends up looking frustrated.
```
Harris's Debate Mindset:
Find humor in heavy topics ➔ Draw a smiley face on the podium ➔ Stay calm & amused ➔ Trigger opponent's predictability
```
This mindset was tested when Trump brought up the viral claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets. Having spent days sequestered in debate camp, Harris hadn't even heard the rumor until right before the debate, when her staff informed her that Trump had just stepped off his plane with the main originator of the story. When Trump actually repeated the "cats and dogs" line on live television, Harris was stunned by the absurdity. However, she highlights this as a classic tactic of political misdirection: by making an outrageous statement, the media and public focus on the absurdity rather than questioning the lack of substantive policy, such as plans to lower prices for working Americans.
Steven Bartlett compares this tactic to marketing, referencing a concept from his own writing where "useless absurdity defines a brand more than useful practicality." To counter someone playing that game, Harris argues that leaders must relentlessly deconstruct the rhetoric and point out the ongoing "gaslighting"—including severe policies like mass deportations that harm American families—rather than falling for the media distraction.
* **Debate Prep Detail:** A smiley face was drawn on her notepad right after shaking Trump's hand to set a lighthearted tone.
* **The Rumor:** False claims regarding Haitian immigrants eating pets (cats and dogs) in Ohio, which staffers warned her about right before the debate.
* **Strategic Concept:** "Useless absurdity" used as a form of misdirection to draw press coverage away from concrete policy topics like the economy and inflation.
[54:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3280s) How Disinformation and Emotion Win Elections
Kamala Harris details the psychological and political mechanics behind Donald Trump's rhetoric. She argues that Trump convinces voters that their struggles are caused by people with even less power than they have, diverting attention away from the truly powerful. Steven Bartlett counters that this tactic clearly works, pointing out that logic rarely wins against fear-driven narratives. He references neuroscientific insights from experts like Dr. Tali Sharot on how the amygdala prioritizes emotional fear—such as hyperbolic stories about vaccines or immigration—over cold, rational statistics like post-pandemic economic recovery.
Harris acknowledges this emotional asymmetry and pivots to the structural root of the problem: media ecosystems and information warfare. Drawing on her experience on the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election, she highlights how targeted disinformation campaigns intentionally exploit specific demographic groups—particularly Black and young voters—by leveraging their lived experiences of institutional distrust. She asserts that combating this requires holding corporate media and social media platforms accountable, while encouraging voters to realize that political disagreements often stem from people operating on entirely different sets of information.
* "He's basically saying to the American people, you have less because of people who have even less than you."
* "I think it's a big mistake for us to assume we're all working with the same information."
* "So I would say flippantly, 'Oh, so now all of a sudden the issue of race in America is a national security issue.'"
---
[01:01:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3699s) Podcasting Power and Skipping *The Joe Rogan Experience*
The discussion shifts to the rapidly changing media landscape, with Bartlett reflecting on the surreal reality of a Vice President sitting in his podcast studio. They discuss the massive influence of independent media and long-form podcasts, noting how appearances on shows like *Call Her Daddy* with Alex Cooper or *The Joe Rogan Experience* shaped the election. When addressed directly about her decision not to appear on Joe Rogan's podcast, Harris clears up rumors about the negotiations, clarifying that she genuinely wanted to do the show despite advisors warning her against it due to Rogan's perceived leanings.
Harris explains that her decision ultimately came down to campaign efficiency and time tradeoffs rather than pride or fear of hostile territory. Facing tight schedules in the final stretch, her campaign weighed the 5-hour travel time to Rogan's studio in Austin against campaigning directly in key swing states. Bartlett argues that stepping into such environments humanizes candidates and shatters political bubbles, expressing regret as a viewer that the interview never happened. Harris agrees with the sentiment, admitting that in hindsight she regrets not doing the interview.
* "I wanted to do Joe Rogan's show, and there was a lot of games being played... Pride is not associated with it. It is literally about return on investment."
* "I have never had the luxury of saying I don't want to go into uncomfortable situations."
* "I regret that we didn't do it. I definitely regret that we didn't do it."
---
[01:07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4029s) Will Kamala Harris Run Again in 2028?
Bartlett confronts Harris with early polling numbers showing her leading the Democratic field for the 2028 presidential nomination, asking whether she feels a calling in her heart to run again. Harris pushes back on making immediate political declarations, stating that she is currently focused on her book tour for *107 Days* and intentionally avoiding being "transactional" with the public. She notes that her desire to avoid coming across as merely asking for votes was part of why she chose not to run for Governor of California.
When pressed on what the case for and against another presidential bid would be, Harris outlines the personal and national stakes involved. She explains that the decision to run comes down to whether she can offer leadership that uplifts the nation and sets it on a better trajectory. Conversely, she acknowledges the immense personal toll a presidential campaign takes on a candidate and their family, emphasizing that public life inherently subjects individuals to being misunderstood on a massive scale.
* "I really don't want to be transactional right now... I don't want to be present because I'm asking for a vote."
* "Anyone running for president should really take very seriously the decision cuz it is not for the faint of heart. You have to be able to take a punch and throw a punch..."
* "Among the difficult aspects is putting yourself out there in a way that you invariably will be in a position... where you will be misunderstood. That's an awful feeling."
Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of Part 5 of the transcript.
[01:10:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4248s) The Personal Toll of Public Service and Election Night Shock
Kamala Harris discusses the intense personal exposure that comes with seeking high public office. In politics, standing out and differentiating oneself inherently exposes a person to intense public hostility. She stresses that to endure both the grueling campaign process and the demands of the office itself, a leader must be grounded in a purpose far greater than personal ambition, ego, or entitlement.
```
ELECTION NIGHT REALIZATION
┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Campaign Manager Calls VP Harris │
│ │
│ "We need 200,000 more votes │
│ that we can't find." │
└───────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Visceral Emotional State │
│ │
│ • State of shock │
│ • Repeating: "My God, my God, my God" │
│ • Pain comparable only to her mother's │
│ passing │
└────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
When asked what it was like inside the room on election night as the results made clear Donald Trump would win, Harris reveals that she went into a state of deep shock. She had fully expected to win the day before. The precise moment of realization came when her campaign manager called to report that the electoral math showed they were short by 200,000 votes that simply could not be found. Overcome by grief and disbelief, she repeatedly muttered, "My God, my God, my God." She reflects that the overwhelming emotion she felt that night was comparable only to the profound grief she experienced when her mother passed away. Her anguish was not about losing a contest, but about the immediate harm and consequences she foresaw for the American public.
- The electoral tipping point was a deficit of approximately 200,000 votes across key battlegrounds.
- Harris compares the emotional weight of the election loss directly to the grief of her mother's death.
[01:13:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4420s) Severe Consequences of the Trump Administration
Harris outlines her deep frustration with the early direction of Donald Trump's administration, contrasting his priorities with the hardships faced by average citizens. She highlights the irony of constructing a grand, gilded ballroom for wealthy allies while millions of Americans face the imminent loss of affordable health coverage due to rising premiums. Furthermore, she warns of the broader systematic erosion occurring across American institutions—from universities and law firms to media companies—driven by fear and capitulation in the face of a weaponized Department of Justice targeting political opponents.
She focuses on the devastating impacts on low-income families and children with special needs, pointing to the gutting of the Department of Education, public school lunch programs, and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Mothers of children with disabilities are struggling to secure necessary educational support. Additionally, despite campaign promises to lower everyday expenses on "day one," working families are now facing higher grocery prices, increased inflation, and rising unemployment due to broad tariffs.
- **Health Coverage:** Millions at risk of losing affordable health insurance due to soaring premiums.
- **Education & Special Needs:** Broad cuts to public school lunch programs and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for children with special needs.
- **Economic Indicators:** Grocery prices, overall inflation, and unemployment metrics have increased following new tariff implementations.
[01:15:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4545s) The Long-Term Right-Wing Strategy and Project 2025
Looking beyond the immediate administration, Harris cautions that Democrats must realize this political shift is not limited to a single individual in the Oval Office. Instead, the country is experiencing the rapid execution of a coordinated, multi-decade conservative strategy. Tactical maneuvers such as judicial packing, aggressive district gerrymandering, and systemic attacks on public education have been engineered over decades by conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. She stresses that Project 2025 and similar initiatives did not appear out of nowhere, and countering them requires deep historical context rather than viewing politics through a single presidential term.
The host notes that in a two-party system, the Democratic Party must take ownership of its strategic failures rather than merely pointing at the consequences of losing the match. Harris agrees with the call for self-examination, reflecting on lessons from her memoir *107 Days*. She acknowledges that while the Biden-Harris administration secured major legislative wins like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and Science Act, policy priorities should have focused immediately on working family relief—such as expanding the Child Tax Credit, providing affordable childcare, enabling paid family leave, and having Medicare cover home healthcare for the "sandwich generation."
- **Key Heritage Organizations Cited:** The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.
- **Policy Priority Adjustments:** Prioritizing Child Tax Credit expansion, paid family leave, and Medicare-covered home healthcare over long-term infrastructure implementation.
- **Small Business Support:** Proposing an increase from the standard $5,000 startup tax deduction to a $5,0000 credit for new small businesses.
[01:19:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4765s) Reconnecting with Innovation and Expanding Youth Voting Rights
Addressing the perception that the political left is anti-entrepreneurship, Harris acknowledges that Democrats must actively work to dismantle this view. As an example of past missteps, she notes in her book that it was a mistake for the White House to exclude Elon Musk from an EV summit with other American automakers. While clarifying that she is "no fan of his" personally, she respects his impact as an innovator and pioneer in American electric vehicle manufacturing. Leaders, she argues, must elevate the greater good over personal or political frictions.
```
PROPOSED ELECTION REFORMS
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Lower Voting Age to 16 │
└────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Target Demographic: Gen Z │
│ • Ages 13 to 27; larger population cohort than Baby Boomers │
│ • Faces distinct economic & environmental pressures │
│ • Averages 10 to 12 jobs over a lifetime │
└────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Key Priority Focus Areas │
│ • Climate anxiety and extreme weather housing impacts │
│ • AI workforce integration and technological disruption │
│ • Long-term housing affordability & economic security │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
To counter structural inertia and energize the electorate, Harris proposes lowering the voting age to 16. She emphasizes that Gen Z (spanning ages 13 to 27) faces unprecedented challenges: severe educational disruptions from the pandemic, extreme weather driven by climate anxiety, uncertainty around AI's impact on employment, and high housing costs. Because this generation will navigate 10 to 12 jobs in a lifetime and live with long-term policy decisions longer than older cohorts, enfranchising them at 16 would force politicians to directly address existential issues like climate change, artificial intelligence, and housing affordability.
- **Automotive Summit Misstep:** Excluding Tesla/Elon Musk from the White House Electric Vehicle conference.
- **Gen Z Demographics:** Encompasses ages 13–27, representing a larger demographic block than Baby Boomers, with an expected lifetime average of 10 to 12 distinct jobs.
- **Electorate Participation Deficit:** One-third of eligible voters did not participate in the 2024 presidential election.
[01:23:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5002s) Future Outlook, Book Tour Catharsis, and Unfiltered Authenticity
When asked about her future political path and whether she would engage with non-traditional or right-leaning media platforms like *The Joe Rogan Experience*, Harris responds affirmatively, stating she would gladly go on Rogan's podcast regardless of a future run because she has "a lot to say." Regarding a potential presidential run in 2028, she notes that any formal decision would likely take shape within the next year, keeping in mind the June primary timeline ahead of the November 2028 election.
She reflects on how her outlook has evolved since election night. While her family's initial instinct was "never again," the passage of time and the cathartic process of authoring her memoir have provided distance and clarity. The conversation turns to her recent public appearances, where she has appeared noticeably more unpolished, direct, and passionate. The host notes that traditional political polish can often prove detrimental, praising the candid nature of long-form podcasting where pretense is stripped away.
- **Potential 2028 Timeline:** Primary choices typically solidify roughly two years out (June 2028 primaries leading into November 2028).
- **Media Engagement:** Explicit willingness to appear on unconventional, high-reach platforms like Joe Rogan to speak directly to broader audiences.
[01:28:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5282s) Lifting the Hood on the Belly of the Beast
The conversation turns to the candid, unfiltered tone of Harris’s book *107 Days*. Steven notes that the writing carries an unvarnished "fuck-it energy." Harris explains that having been inside the "belly of the beast," she realizes how much a presidential election impacts billions of people across the globe, yet the process remains entirely opaque to ordinary citizens. She wrote the book to lift up the hood and demystify the presidency for everyone—from journalists and high school students to grandmothers—so they can understand how power works and recognize their own potential.
When asked directly if she regrets running on just 107 days' notice or wishes she hadn't, Harris insists she has no regrets, though she deeply wishes they had been given more time. Even if she had known the final outcome beforehand, she believes she still would have run. She reflects on the countless men, women, and children who have approached her since, saying her campaign inspired them to run for local office, apply to law school, or engage with politics for the very first time. She emphasizes that while people always had that potential inside them, the energy of those 107 days ignited optimism and joy. Her main message now is to urge supporters not to let their spirits be defeated, because "then they really win."
[01:31:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5493s) Doug Emhoff: The Rock and Election Night Shock
Steven transitions to discussing Harris’s personal support system, showing photos of her family and her dog. He asks who she turned to on election night when news arrived that 200,000 vital votes could not be found. Harris speaks tenderly about her husband, Doug Emhoff, calling him her "rock." She describes him as a strong, fully self-actualized man who cares deeply about family and hard work. She urges anyone striving for ambition to build an intentional inner circle—whether a spouse, partner, or friend—who truly understands their journey, can keep them grounded, and can laugh with them behind closed doors.
She admits that on election night, both she and Doug were in a profound state of shock and were "not very articulate." Remarkably, they did not talk about election night for months until she began writing the chapter about it in her book. During that writing process, Doug revealed a secret he had kept from her that night: while returning from campaigning in Michigan with her brother-in-law Tony West, he received a call from a Democratic friend working inside the Fox News war room warning him that things looked bad. Doug had kept that heavy realization to himself all evening, going upstairs to shower and pray while hiding his anxiety. He was so consumed by worry that he didn't even process her giving a toast at their friends-and-family dinner—a toast she had to prove she gave by showing him photographs later.
- Doug Emhoff campaigned in Michigan on election day with Harris's brother-in-law, Tony West.
- A Democratic pundit insider inside the Fox News "boiler room" called Emhoff to warn him early on that the figures looked alarming.
- The couple avoided discussing the details of election night for months until Harris sat down to write her memoir.
[01:37:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5826s) Concession, Hawaii, and Processing Grief
In the immediate aftermath of the election loss, Harris had to pivot quickly to address her supporters at her alma mater, Howard University. Having ended every campaign rally with the catchphrase "When we fight, we win," she realized she needed to help young people process the defeat. On the drive to Howard, she personally added the line, "Sometimes the fight takes a while," to her concession speech. When she arrived in the green room and saw her family weeping, she refused to let them break down, telling them firmly, "We are not having a pity party," relying on sheer focus and function to get through the day.
Afterward, the physical and emotional toll caught up with them. Forced to cancel a planned vacation due to a global emergency, her team rearranged for them to use the rental house they had already paid for in Hawaii. Harris describes that trip not as a luxury vacation, but as an emergency "oxygen mask" dropping. Joined by close friends, she and Doug felt like "zombies" as they began processing the loss. She acknowledges experiencing symptoms akin to "gold medal depression"—where the constant surge of adrenaline abruptly vanishes—as well as a sensation like a "phantom limb," constantly feeling like there was still something more she ought to be doing to fight back.
- Harris delivered her concession speech at Howard University, her alma mater.
- She modified her speech on the way to the venue to include the line: *"Sometimes the fight takes a while."*
- To recover, she and Doug retreated to a rental home in Hawaii, describing their mental state as feeling like "zombies" undergoing classic stages of grief and "phantom limb" restless urgency.
[01:40:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=6036s) The Spirit of Shyamala Gopalan
The conversation shifts to Harris's late mother, Shyamala Gopalan, who passed away from colon cancer at age 70 (just two months after her birthday on December 7th, dying on February 11th). Harris reflects on how her mother’s fierce spirit remains present in her life. She shares a humorous aside about trying to include her mother in her "safe space" core team during her early San Francisco District Attorney run, only to realize it was a mistake because her mother "wanted to kill everybody" who attacked her, forcing Harris to spend energy calming her down instead of running her campaign.
Harris shares a poignant memory from when her mother was hospitalized during her run for California Attorney General. Lying in the hospital bed, her mother asked how the campaign was going, to which Harris truthfully replied, "Well, Mommy... they said they're going to kick my ass." Her mother simply turned over, looked at her, and smiled a fiery, silent "let them try" smile. Harris reflects on the duality of life—that experiencing intense grief and loss is the price of having loved deeply, and she would never trade that experience away.
- Shyamala Gopalan was born December 7th and passed away February 11th at age 70 from colon cancer.
- Harris looked after her mother in the hospital during her campaign for California Attorney General.
- When Harris admitted her opponents said they were going to "kick my ass," her mother offered a resolute, proud smile.
[01:44:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=6275s) The Final Question and Farewell
To conclude the interview, Steven brings up the show's tradition where the previous guest leaves a question for the upcoming guest without knowing who they are. The question left for Harris asks: "If there was a moment in the last 10 years you would do differently, what would it be and why?"
Harris laughs at the massive scope of the question, lightheartedly gesturing that answering it fully would take an entire second interview before teasing, "Read my book!" Steven wraps up the episode by praising *107 Days* for its rare, human transparency and thanking Harris for her lifelong dedication to public service. Visibly moved, Harris thanks him warmly as the interview ends.
> "If anyone takes the time to read your book or look through the story of your life, it is irrefutable that your agenda is to serve people." — Steven Bartlett
## Notable quotes
> [18:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1091s) Don't ever limit yourself based on other people's limited ability to see who you are. — Kamala Harris
> [21:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1271s) Don't you ever let anyone tell you who you are, you tell them who you are. — Shyamala Gopalan
> [49:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2954s) useless absurdity defines a brand more than useful practicality — Steven Bartlett
> [54:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3280s) He's basically saying to the American people, you have less because of people who have even less than you. — Kamala Harris
> [54:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3280s) I think it's a big mistake for us to assume we're all working with the same information. — Kamala Harris
> [01:01:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3699s) I wanted to do Joe Rogan's show, and there was a lot of games being played... Pride is not associated with it. It is literally about return on investment. — Kamala Harris
> [01:01:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3699s) I regret that we didn't do it. I definitely regret that we didn't do it. — Kamala Harris
> [01:07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4029s) I really don't want to be transactional right now... I don't want to be present because I'm asking for a vote. — Kamala Harris
> [01:07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4029s) Among the difficult aspects is putting yourself out there in a way that you invariably will be in a position... where you will be misunderstood. That's an awful feeling. — Kamala Harris
> [01:10:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4248s) We need 200,000 more votes that we can't find. — Campaign Manager
> [01:37:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5826s) Sometimes the fight takes a while — Kamala Harris
> [01:37:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5826s) We are not having a pity party — Kamala Harris
> [01:51:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=6675s) If anyone takes the time to read your book or look through the story of your life, it is irrefutable that your agenda is to serve people. — Steven Bartlett
## Mentioned
Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Steven Bartlett, Doug Emhoff, Maya Harris, Shyamala Gopalan, Donald J. Harris, Mrs. Francis Wilson, LeBron James, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, Philippe, Hillary Clinton, Dr. Tali Sharot, Alex Cooper, Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, Tony West, 107 Days: A Memoir of a Campaign That Made History, The Diary Of A CEO, YouTube, The Joe Rogan Experience, Call Her Daddy, Fiverr, Justworks, Bon Charge, Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, Department of Justice, Department of Education, Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science Act, Child Tax Credit, Medicare, UC Berkeley, U.S. Senate, Senate Intelligence Committee, Howard University, Fox News, Tesla, Austin, Texas, Springfield, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, California, Berkeley, Oakland, East Bay, San Francisco, Hawaii, Los Angeles
哈里斯指责拜登幕僚压制其政绩，遗憾错失罗根专访
前副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯称，白宫幕僚出于零和思维，为了保护乔·拜登而故意打压她的公众形象。
在一场坦诚而广泛的访谈中，卡玛拉·哈里斯回顾了长达107天的紧张总统竞选以及大选之夜落选带来的巨大震惊。她坦率谈及自己与乔·拜登总统之间的复杂关系、白宫内部幕僚的摩擦，以及多项竞选战略决策，包括错失参加播客节目《The Joe Rogan Experience》的机会。哈里斯阐述了她对特朗普政府在医疗保健、教育和经济政策方面的严重担忧，同时分享了对自身法律生涯的反思、丈夫道格·埃姆霍夫（Doug Emhoff）的支持，以及已故母亲对她的深远影响。
卡玛拉·哈里斯坦言对乔·拜登感到失望，特别指出在与特朗普举行关键辩论的当天早晨，拜登打来了一通以自我为中心、毫无实质帮助的电话，分散了她的备战精力。 (38:24)
哈里斯披露白宫幕僚普遍存在“零和博弈”心态，因担忧提升副总统威望会削弱总统本人，从而刻意压制她的政绩宣传与公开曝光。 (36:27)
针对竞选策略中的重大取舍，哈里斯对最终未出席《The Joe Rogan Experience》播客专访深感遗憾，并澄清这主要是行程时间投资回报考量而非出于自负或畏惧。 (61:39)
在2024年大选开票之夜，竞选团队告知在关键战场州尚缺20万张无法挽回的选票，哈里斯随即陷入巨大震惊，并将当时深重的悲痛直比当年痛失母亲的时刻。 (70:48)
Reading summary
In reflections surrounding her memoir *107 Days*, Vice President Kamala Harris argues that the Democratic Party must confront long-term strategic missteps, White House operational frictions, and an evolving media landscape following Donald Trump's 2024 victory. Drawing on her compressed campaign, she analyzes the effectiveness of fear-driven political misdirection, the acute personal toll of electoral defeat, and the systemic challenges facing American institutions.
Staff Rivalries and Tension with Joe Biden (36:27)
Harris details structural tensions inside the White House, asserting that aides under President Joe Biden operated with a "zero-sum game" mindset where elevating the Vice President was perceived as diminishing the President. According to Harris and references from her memoir *107 Days*, this internal dynamic led presidential communications staffers to let negative media narratives against her fester rather than using administrative resources to defend her record.
Political Misdirection and Modern Media Strategy (49:14)
Analyzing Donald Trump's political rhetoric, Harris categorizes inflammatory statements—such as false claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio—as calculated misdirection designed to steer public scrutiny away from substantive policy gaps in inflation and healthcare. Drawing on her experience on the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference in 2016, she argues that fear-based narratives intentionally trigger emotional alarms over rational data, exploiting institutional distrust across key voter demographics.
Harris also acknowledges strategic campaign miscalculations within an evolving media environment, explicitly expressing regret over bypassing an appearance on *The Joe Rogan Experience*. While advisors cautioned against Rogan's political leanings, Harris explains that the decision ultimately hinged on campaign scheduling efficiency, trading five hours of travel to Austin against campaigning in vital swing states. In hindsight, she concedes that skipping the interview was an error given the necessity of reaching non-traditional audiences.
Democratic Party Reassessment and Long-Term Missteps (75:45)
Harris cautions that the current political landscape is not the product of a single administration, pointing instead to a coordinated, multi-decade strategy engineered by conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society around judicial appointments, gerrymandering, and Project 2025. She argues the Democratic Party must engage in rigorous self-examination: while the Biden-Harris administration passed major legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and Science Act, she contends that immediate kitchen-table relief—such as an expanded Child Tax Credit, paid family leave, and Medicare-covered home healthcare—should have taken priority.
Additionally, Harris warns against portraying the political left as hostile to enterprise, citing the White House's exclusion of Tesla's Elon Musk from an electric vehicle summit as a counterproductive misstep. To counter structural inertia and re-engage younger cohorts facing climate anxiety, artificial intelligence disruptions, and housing shortages, she advocates lowering the federal voting age to 16.
The Toll of Defeat and Future Prospects (70:48)
Recounting election night, Harris describes falling into shock after campaign leadership confirmed an insurmountable deficit of approximately 200,000 battleground votes, an emotional blow she compares to the grief of her mother Shyamala Gopalan's passing. On her way to deliver her concession speech at Howard University, she personally added the line, "Sometimes the fight takes a while," to protect young supporters from despair, before retreating to Hawaii to recover from abrupt adrenaline withdrawal and emotional exhaustion.
Looking ahead, Harris remains non-committal regarding a potential 2028 presidential campaign despite early polling showing her leading the Democratic primary field. Emphasizing that decisions will likely take shape closer to the 2026–2028 primary cycle, she states that her current focus is on demystifying the presidency through her book tour rather than adopting a transactional approach to voters.
While Harris maintains that she has no regrets about undertaking the 107-day presidential bid, she stresses that reversing political setbacks will require Democrats to build long-term institutional power and engage voters across fractured media ecosystems. Her political future remains open, leaving unresolved whether she will mount another presidential bid in 2028 amid continuing public anxiety and the personal costs of public exposure.
精炼阅读摘要
在接受播客《The Diary Of A CEO》专访时，美国前副总统Kamala Harris回顾了其2024年仅历时107天的总统竞选，指出民主党不仅要对抗保守派数十年布局的制度性进攻，还承受了白宫内部权力制衡与传播决策失误的代价。结合其回忆录《107 Days》，Harris强调大选落败带来了如丧母般的深重创痛，但民主党必须从脱离选民实际关切与规避新兴传播渠道的策略失误中深刻反思。
白宫内部权力掣肘与突发选战阵痛 (36:27)
Harris在反思其临危受命的107天总统竞选时指出，拜登团队内部的政治算计削弱了行政当局的整体合力。她在回忆录《107 Days: A Memoir of a Campaign That Made History》中披露，白宫核心幕僚普遍持有“零和博弈”心态，认为副总统声望提升会削弱总统的权威，因此在媒体对其发起不公攻击时，白宫庞大的公关机器往往选择袖手旁观，任由负面叙事发酵，直接阻碍了公众了解她在任期内推进的政绩。
谈及与Joe Biden的个人关系，Harris称其温暖却复杂。她回忆在对阵Donald Trump的关键辩论当天早晨，正在梳妆备战的她接到了Biden的电话，对方并未给予鼓励，反而抱怨宾夕法尼亚州有人传言她在私下说他的坏话。Harris直言这通电话充满了自我中心主义，令她在巨大压力下感到极度沮丧与愤怒。此外，她将此前导致Biden退选的那场电视辩论直截了当地形容为一场“车祸现场”，认为当时的Biden是在被勉强说服的情况下登场，其挣扎状态直接促成了后来仓促交接权力的严峻局面。
舆论战、政治转移视线与媒介误判 (54:40)
在剖析与Donald Trump的正面对决时，Harris揭示了对手利用政治荒谬进行认知战的逻辑。在辩论台上，Trump公开散布俄亥俄州斯普林菲尔德（Springfield）海地移民“吃宠物猫狗”的谣言。Harris指出，这种反常识的荒谬言论本质上是一种高度精密的“政治声东击西”策略，其目的是诱导媒体和公众将精力耗费在奇观式话题上，从而掩盖保守派在降低工薪阶层生活成本等核心政策上的空洞。
针对选举信息传播格局的剧变，Harris反思了竞选团队对独立新媒体的误判。她澄清自己从未拒绝登上全美顶级播客《The Joe Rogan Experience》，但竞选团队在终局阶段机械地计算时间投资回报率，认为往返得克萨斯州奥斯汀录制节目的5小时成本过高，不如在关键摇摆州跑场。Harris明确坦承，在后真相时代，数以百万计的选民仅通过长音频播客获取信息，团队因日程权衡而放弃该专访是一个重大战略失误，对此她深感后悔。
选举夜溃败冲击与身心创伤平复 (70:48)
Harris详细回忆了选举之夜得知大选结果时的窒息感。当竞选经理致电告知关键摇摆州存在约20万张无法弥补的选票缺口时，她瞬间陷入巨大的惊厥与悲恸之中，不断重复“我的上帝”。Harris直言，落败当晚的精神创痛程度，此前在她生命中仅有母亲Shyamala Gopalan因结肠癌在70岁离世时才能与之相比，这种痛苦并非源于个人野心受挫，而是预见到弱势群体将面临的制度性冲击。
她的丈夫Doug Emhoff在大选期间一直是核心支柱，但当天同样承受着极度压抑的煎熬。Emhoff事后透露，他在选举日傍晚就已接到来自Fox News数据室内部盟友的预警电话，但为了维持竞选团队的气势，他将坏消息隐瞒了整整一个晚上。大选结束后，Harris在霍华德大学（Howard University）发表承认败选演说，并特意加入“有时战斗需要更长时间”的语句以勉励青年群体。随后两人前往夏威夷休整，经历了如同奥运选手脱离极限高压后的“金牌抑郁症”以及强烈的“幻肢感”，在极度麻木中逐步完成心理重建。
保守派长期布局与民主党路线纠偏 (75:45)
Harris强调，当前的政治逆流绝非单一总统任期内的偶然现象，而是传统基金会（Heritage Foundation）与联邦党人学会（Federalist Society）等保守派智库长达数十年的战略结晶，体现为司法机构重塑、选区划分倾斜以及Project 2025政策框架的快速落地。她警告，削减教育部预算、取消公立学校午餐、削弱残障儿童个别化教育计划（IEP）以及全面加征关税导致的高通胀与失业率，正给基层家庭带来系统性创伤。
面对这种结构性溃败，Harris要求民主党展开深刻自省。她指出，尽管拜登-哈里斯政府达成了基础设施法案和芯片法案等长远立法，但未能优先解决普通家庭眼下的燃眉之急——例如扩大儿童税收抵免、推行带薪家事假、由Medicare支付居家长期照护费用，并将初创小企业减税额度从5,000美元大幅提升至50,000美元。此外，她承认白宫此前在电动汽车峰会中刻意排除Elon Musk是狭隘的政治偏见，强调执政必须展现对创新力量的包容。为打破政治僵局，Harris主张将投票年龄下调至16岁，赋予面临气候危机、人工智能冲击和沉重房租负担的Z世代（13至27岁人群）直接决定未来的政治权利。
对于民调显示其在2028年民主党总统初选中的潜在领先优势，Harris表示当前正专注于回忆录巡回交流，明确拒绝在现阶段展示功利性的参选姿态，并指出任何正式政治决断都将在未来一年内依据2028年6月初选的周期节奏自然明朗。这场对话留给外界的核心未决问题在于：面对高度极化的媒体生态和保守派深耕已久的制度阵地，民主党能否真正打破精英政治的惯性藩篱，通过根本性的经济纾困与代际扩权重建公众信任。
Detailed notes — zh
## Background
本期访谈由知名商业播客《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特 Steven Bartlett）于 2025 年 10 月 30 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目简介指出，美国前副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）在选后首度打破沉默，围绕其畅销回忆录《107天》（107 Days），深入披露了拜登在关键辩论日的幕后致电、未做客 Joe Rogan 播客的失误考量、大选之夜痛失关键 20 万张选票的休克时刻，以及对特朗普执政下国家危机和 2028 年政治前景的剖析。
## TL;DR
访谈全面回顾了哈里斯从打破天花板的一线检察官到入主白宫西翼的从政生涯，重点揭露了白宫幕僚对副总统政绩的系统性压制，以及与拜登复杂微妙的搭档关系。哈里斯深入复盘了 2024 年大选风云，包括拜登灾难性辩论背后的内情、辩论前夕拜登突发抱怨来电的干扰、迎战特朗普时的心理战术，以及错失 Joe Rogan 播客的选战投入产出比考量。面对败选之夜得知缺票后的极度震惊与心理重创，哈里斯反思了民主党在民生优先顺序与创业精神沟通上的不足，警示保守派 Project 2025 的深层威胁，并在回顾母亲精神传承的同时，展现出卸下政治防备后的真实心境与面向未来的坚韧态度。
## Atmosphere & style
整场对话呈现出一种罕见的坦诚、深沉且极具张力的私密氛围，主持人循循善诱的心理与商业洞察，与哈里斯彻底卸下传统政客圆滑说辞后的“去滤镜化”表达碰撞出强烈共鸣。叙事的情感弧线跌宕起伏：从青年执法时无所畏惧的热血，切换至白宫权力角力与临战被干扰的愤怒，再跌入败选开票夜如丧至亲般的空虚与“政治幻肢痛”，最终在夏威夷的休整与对母亲的追忆中走向和解与坚毅。聆听过程既像是在直面高层政治暗箱的无情冷酷，又能切身触摸到一位历史级领导者在经历巅峰与剧痛撕扯后，所流露出的脆弱、幽默与未灭的斗志。
## Bulletin
- [35:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2114s) 白宫内部权力内耗与舆论弃防：哈里斯直言拜登部分幕僚受制于“防范副总统”的潜规则，为防止其声芒盖过拜登，曾系统性压制其政绩宣传并拒绝调动公关资源澄清针对她的负面攻击。
- [41:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2497s) 辩论日前后冲突与自私来电：哈里斯披露拜登最初根本不愿与特朗普辩论，而在她迎战特朗普的关键辩论当天，拜登致电并非鼓舞士气，反而是围绕个人名誉抱怨地方传言，行事完全出于自身得失。
- [01:04:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3871s) 错失 Joe Rogan 访谈与选票终局：哈里斯证实放弃录制全美顶流播客源于白热化选战中 5 小时往返摇摆州动员的 ROI 计算，但事后深感后悔；大选开票夜因关键州缺少 20 万张选票而最终落败。
- [01:17:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4629s) 民主党执政战略反思与 2028 抉择：哈里斯反思执政时期未能将儿童税收抵免等直接民生政策置于芯片与基建之前，并坦承白宫峰会排除埃隆·马斯克是狭隘失误；关于 2028 年大选，她预计将在未来一年内定夺。
## Key takeaways
- [35:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2114s) 白宫幕僚的零和打压机制：白宫幕僚长历来存在“紧盯副总统”的防范潜规则，拜登核心团队因将哈里斯视作潜在威胁，在执政期间系统性压制其成就宣传，甚至放任不实舆论发酵。
- [41:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2497s) 辩论前夕总统来电的心理冲击：在与特朗普对决前数小时，拜登致电哈里斯大肆抱怨宾州政界人士对其个人的私下风评，在关键节点对哈里斯造成了难以置信的精神干扰与愤怒。
- [44:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2679s) 拜登首场辩论溃败的内在根源：哈里斯直觉拜登从戴维营集训时就流露出沉重异样，内心深处根本不想参与该场辩论，而缺乏取胜渴望导致其在台上演变成灾难性的“车祸现场”。
- [50:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3023s) 特朗普荒谬营销与煤气灯策略：辩论中散播“海地移民吃宠物”是特朗普典型的声东击西术，利用荒诞离奇的噱头绑架公众议程，成功掩盖其在工薪民生政策上的真空。
- [54:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3276s) 情绪煽动战胜理性逻辑的认知战：右翼民粹擅长将生活困境转嫁给更弱势群体，并通过杏仁核激活选民恐惧；面对被算法割裂的信息茧房，民主党单凭客观经济数据难以有效触达选民。
- [01:04:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3871s) 未登上 Joe Rogan 播客的代价与反思：哈里斯承认未做客全美第一播客是选战重大失误，现代政治沟通已从封闭的“黑匣子”转向透明的“玻璃箱”，候选人必须敢于跨入非舒适区直接对话。
- [01:12:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4322s) 大选之夜落败与对国家破坏的剧痛：在得知尚缺 20 万张选票无力回天后，哈里斯陷入如丧至亲般的创伤状态，她直指特朗普上任后正在系统性瓦解普通人医保、公共教育与司法公正。
- [01:15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4500s) 超越单一政客的系统性危机：哈里斯警告 Project 2025、操弄选区划分以及重塑最高法院是保守派运作数十年的深层政纲，绝非白宫换届一人所致，民主党不能低估这场体制危机。
- [01:17:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4629s) 执政政策推进顺序的严重错位：反思过去四年，哈里斯认为理应将延长儿童税收抵免、普惠托儿和三明治一代照护等民生痛点置于最前线，而非先去攻坚耗时漫长且感知度低的宏观基建与芯片法案。
- [01:19:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4766s) 摒弃意识形态偏见与正视创业精神：承认民主党在公众眼中存在反商业的刻板印象，哈里斯指出白宫当年电动车峰会排除埃隆·马斯克是一大错误，卓越领导者必须超越个人恩怨追求更大公益。
- [01:20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4846s) 提议将法定投票年龄下调至 16 岁：为打破华盛顿仅讨好高投票率老年群体与富豪金主的怪圈，哈里斯提议赋权 Z 世代，倒逼政治体制直面气候危机、AI 就业冲击和住房负担危机。
- [01:07:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4062s) 2028 参选代价与胜任门槛：竞选总统会招致素未谋面之人的刻骨仇恨并极大消耗家庭，若无高于自我的崇高动机便无法承受；哈里斯表示将视自己能否带来积极改变在未来一年内定夺。
- [01:31:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5493s) 核心支持系统是穿越风暴的唯一锚点：从道格在大选之夜隐瞒不利选情独自祈祷，到赛后全盘接纳脆弱，哈里斯强调高压领袖身边必须有能在跌倒时将你拉回赛场的极少数知己。
- [01:38:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5900s) 骤停后的战后虚脱与政治幻肢痛：败选演说中以“战斗有时需要更长时间”拒绝自怜派对后，肾上腺素骤降引发了严重的生理虚脱与心理抑郁，大脑在数日内本能地在“还能做点什么”中反复煎熬。
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=0s) 访谈前瞻与重磅内幕预告
在这段开场集锦中，卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）直接披露了诸多未曾公开的政治内幕与心路历程。她直言不讳地谈到对乔·拜登（Joe Biden）的复杂感受：“有些时候，乔·拜登让我极为失望，坦白说，甚至让我感到愤怒。”特别是在她与唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）进行关键电视辩论的当天，拜登在事态如此重大的时刻给她打来电话，其所言所行让她感到“完全没有必要”，甚至认为拜登的出发点完全是为了他自己。当被问及拜登是否真心希望她赢得大选时，哈里斯直面尖锐提问，毫无回避之意。
随后，对话串联了多个震撼的选举节点：哈里斯明确表示自己绝不后悔参选，唯一遗憾的是“我们没有更多的时间”；谈到此前拜登与特朗普那场被称为“车祸现场”的辩论，她直言拜登当时显然陷入了极大的挣扎，实际上拜登根本不想参加那场辩论；关于未能做客乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）播客节目的争议，她承认确实感到遗憾，但背后存在着很多“博弈与花招”；而面对胜选希望落空的那一晚，她描述自己陷入了彻底的震惊，那种情绪唯有母亲去世时的悲恸可以比拟。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 核心内幕回顾流程图
accDescr: 展现哈里斯在访谈前瞻中披露的选战关键节点与冲突
subgraph S1["竞选冲突与关键抉择"]
A["拜登辩论日来电引发不满"] --> B["拜登对阵特朗普的糟糕辩论"]
B --> C["错失Joe Rogan播客访谈"]
end
subgraph S2["败选冲击与未来思考"]
C --> D["大选之夜：震惊与丧亲般的悲痛"]
D --> E["着眼当下与未来政治可能性"]
end
```
- 乔·拜登在哈里斯与特朗普辩论当天致电，哈里斯认为其举动自私且毫无必要。
- 拜登对阵特朗普的辩论表现灾难性，哈里斯指出拜登本人最初根本不想参与这场辩论。
- 关于未参加 Joe Rogan 播客，哈里斯表达了遗憾，并透露背后牵涉诸多幕后角力。
- 败选之夜哈里斯遭受的情感重创，与当年母亲离世时的悲痛如出一辙。
---
### [02:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=126s) 败选后的心境与对美国现状的深切担忧
主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及哈里斯近来的状态，哈里斯表示，从家庭和健康的层面来看自己一切安好，但放眼大局，当下正处于一个极其令人不安的时期。她的内心交织着极为复杂的感受：一方面对所拥有的一切心怀感激与庆幸，另一方面则对国家乃至世界的走向感到极度困扰、失望与忧心忡忡。就像无数每天关注新闻的普通大众一样，她也身处一种对“接下来会发生什么”的持续焦虑之中。
哈里斯在巡回签售新书《107天》（*107 Days*）期间，经常对台下听众说一句话：“情况可能会在好转之前变得更糟。”这种对潜在危机的预判与等待让所有人神经紧绷。她坦言，虽然现任政府充满了不可预测性，但眼下发生的几乎所有负面事态，其实都在她竞选时的预料之中。
当主持人问及她是否会因为没能在仅有的107天内扭转历史进程而感到某种责任感时，哈里斯承认自己确实经常设想“如果结果不同，一切会是怎样”。她看到如今有大量民众生活在彻骨的恐惧之中，害怕遭遇仇恨袭击或沦为虚假信息的受害者。虽然她明白若由自己当选，国家走上的道路将截然不同，但为了心理健康，她努力不让自己沉溺于这种假设中，而是坚持立足于当下。
- 哈里斯坦言内心在感恩与对国家前途的极度焦虑之间拉扯。
- 她警告全美大众“情况可能会在好转之前变得更糟”，且许多恶果早在预料之中。
- 面对仅有107天的选战遗憾，她尽量克制自己不过度陷入“如果当初胜选”的假设。
---
### [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=300s) 家庭烙印与保护他人的执念
在探讨哈里斯为何能打破多项历史纪录、成为美国政坛的特例时，哈里斯将一切归功于父母以及抚养她成长的社区。她的母亲在19岁时孑然一身从印度来到美国，在加州伯克利和奥克兰迅速投身于民权运动，并结识了来自牙买加的学者父亲。哈里斯与妹妹玛雅（Maya）成长于一个全员为正义、自由与平等而战的环境中，从小接受的教育就是“你很重要，你有责任参与并做出改变”。
主持人在访谈中透露，他们事先与哈里斯的丈夫道格·埃姆霍夫（Doug Emhoff）进行过交流，道格深情且幽默地爆料，两人第一次约会时，哈里斯就郑重其事地宣告自己的使命是“帮助他人、服务他人”。同为律师出身，道格毕业后直接进入私营律所执业，而哈里斯却从未想过进入私营领域谋取高薪，金钱对她毫无吸引力，她唯一的执着在于保护弱者并赋予他们尊严。
这种强烈的保护欲在很大程度上源于她的长女身份与童年经历。从两岁起，母亲就不断叮嘱她：“照顾好你的妹妹，保护好你的妹妹。”此外，哈里斯在成长过程中亲眼目睹了身高仅有5英尺（约1.52米）、带有浓重口音的母亲作为一名有色人种女性所遭受的社会偏见。这些亲身经历深刻地塑造了她的价值观，使她坚信必须去守护每一个人的尊严不受践踏。
- 母亲19岁从印度赴美求学并投身民权运动，父亲为牙买加学者。
- 丈夫道格透露，哈里斯在两人首次约会时便明确表态自己的人生使命是为公众服务。
- 拒绝私营律所的高薪诱惑，长期投身公共法律事业，核心动力源自长女责任与母亲受歧视的经历。
---
### [07:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=474s) 早期检察官生涯与人性最阴暗的角落
从24岁担任副地方检察官，到51岁当选加利福尼亚州总检察长，哈里斯一路打破天花板，成为担任这两项职务的第一位女性和第一位非裔美国人。在这一时期，她推行了多项重大司法改革：在2008年次贷危机后为加州房主争取到250亿美元的救济金、创立“重回正轨”（Back on Track）罪犯重返社会康复计划，并使加州成为全美首个强制司法执法人员佩戴执法记录仪的州。然而，哈里斯坦言自己有个“既是优势也是劣势”的特质：一旦解决了一个问题，她根本不会停下来庆祝或表扬自己，而是立刻投身于下一个难题。
在漫长的一线法律生涯中，哈里斯直面了人性中最黑暗的一面。她曾专门负责起诉儿童性侵案件，面对成年人摧残无辜幼童的残暴罪行，她承受了巨大的心理冲击。她动情地回忆起多年前的一起案件：受害的是一名小学低年级的小女孩，因为孩子年纪太小，根本无法在法庭上清晰作证。哈里斯深知现存的证据不足以让陪审团给施暴者定罪，她痛苦地躲进法院的洗手间失声痛哭。即便过去多年，那个无助的小女孩依然经常浮现在她的脑海中，让她更加坚信整个社会最崇高的职责应当是保护最脆弱的儿童。
- 担任加州总检察长期间，曾为次贷危机受害房主追回250亿美元救济款。
- 推行“重回正轨”计划，并推动加州率先在全美强制执法人员佩戴身体记录仪。
- 早期专门经手儿童性侵与凶杀大案，曾因小受害者年幼无法作证导致罪犯难以定罪，在法院洗手间痛哭。
### [11:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=666s) 应对巨大压力的法则与完美主义的负担
面对从地方检察官、加州总检察长一路走到副总统，再到角逐总统宝座所承受的惊人压力、公众评判与政治攻击，卡玛拉·哈里斯透露，支撑自己身心不垮的最基本习惯看似寻常却不可动摇——那就是“每天早晨坚持锻炼”。她坦言，无论前一晚睡了多么微不足道的几个小时，清晨的锻炼都是重置“思维、身体与灵魂”的关键锚点。随着仕途上升，外部压力的绝对体量呈指数级增长，但她内心那种对职责的沉重道德负担感却从未改变。
哈里斯承认自己身上带有极强的完美主义倾向，尽管她深知自己“远非完美”。这种极致的标准常常带来内心的煎熬；在2024年那场仓促而高压的“107天”竞选征程中，她几乎每个夜晚都会在床上辗转反侧，脑海中不断回放并追问自己：“在刚刚过去的这一天里，我本该还能多做些什么？”
- **减压与专注的核心习惯**：每天清晨无论睡眠长短，必坚持体能锻炼，以维系心智与体魄的韧性。
- **自我要求与道德重担**：始终以极高标准审视自己，深夜复盘已成惯性，特别是在接棒选战的“107天”里，夜夜都在反思当天的极限在哪里。
---
### [12:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=765s) 25岁无所畏惧的年轻检察官与“把精力放在对的地方”
当被问及如果让当年刚踏入法律界、成为副地方检察官的年轻哈里斯，与如今坐在副总统位置上的自己面对面交谈，会有何不同时，哈里斯给出了一个生动的评价：当年的她“无所畏惧”（fearless），耳朵里根本听不进任何“这办不到”的拒绝之词。她回忆起早年承办案件时的一个鲜活细节：在一个周五傍晚，各法庭正陆续闭门下班，年轻的哈里斯在翻阅案件卷宗时，猛然意识到刚被逮捕羁押的一名女性当事人家里还有年幼的孩子需要照料。她无法忍受让这位母亲被无辜关押整个周末，便径直冲进法庭，恳请法官重新开庭审理。
法庭书记员当时冷冰冰地拒绝，称法官当天的工作已经结束、准备离席。但哈里斯执拗地站在原地死守法庭拒绝离开，最终迫使法庭重新叫号过堂。这种“不轻易接受不可能、至少要拼尽全力去试一试”的执拗劲头，贯穿了她的一生。但岁月的历练也为她注入了更务实的智慧：她逐渐学会坦然接受“你无法改变所有人”的现实。现在的她能够更冷静、更敏锐地评估现实潜在空间，既不变得世故冷漠，又能高效地将有限的精力聚焦在“真正能发挥作用的地方”。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 青年与成熟期哈里斯的处事思维演变
accDescr: 对比哈里斯年轻时执拗对抗一切阻碍与如今懂得合理分配精力的思维进化
subgraph Young["20多岁的哈里斯：无所畏惧的执拗"]
A["拒绝听从任何'办不到'"] --> B["周五强留法官开庭<br/>避免涉案母亲无辜羁押"]
B --> C["不撞南墙不回头<br/>凡事必须亲自试错"]
end
subgraph Mature["历经沉淀的哈里斯：务实且高效"]
D["客观评估局势与现实潜力"] --> E["接受'你无法改变所有人'"]
E --> F["将有限精力投入到<br/>真正能产生结果的地方"]
end
Young -.->|岁月沉淀与经验积累| Mature
```
---
### [15:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=910s) 竞选总统的种子与掌控白宫风云的底气
谈到何时萌生了竞选美国总统的念头，哈里斯表示，与那些“生来就觉得自己能当总统、每天照镜子都看到未来总统”的人截然不同，她从未将入主白宫当作人生既定轨道。这个转折点发生在她在国会参议院任职期间。当时她与丈夫道格·埃姆霍夫（Doug Emhoff）在一家当地餐馆的家庭餐桌旁用餐，一位走上前来打招呼的朋友随口对她说：“你应该去竞选总统。”这句话像一颗种子，悄然落入她的心间并开始生根发芽。
真正让她确信自己具备胜任这一职务能力的，是入主白宫担任副总统后的实战历练。在此期间，哈里斯代表美国会晤了超过150位国家元首、总理、首相和君主，主导并参与了关乎美国人民利益的关键谈判；她在白宫椭圆形办公室和战情室（Situation Room）度过了数不清的高压时刻，足迹遍布全球。因此，在2024年突如其来的107天选战打响时，她不仅彻底清醒地认识到这份责任的分量，更无比笃信自己的经验、知识和手腕足以胜任世界最强大国家的领导者。
- **萌生念头的契机**：任职联邦参议员期间，在与丈夫于餐厅就餐时偶然受到一位朋友的郑重建议。
- **外交与执政底蕴**：作为副总统直接与全球150多位领导人交手，深入白宫战情室决策中枢，积累了完备的国家安全与内政谈判经验。
---
### [16:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=995s) 冒名顶替综合征：走得越高，越发现没人不可触碰
面对关于“冒名顶替综合征”（Impostor syndrome）是否会随着地位攀升而消失的讨论，哈里斯分享了自己初次竞选旧金山地区检察官时的难忘经历。当时她向在任的现任检察官发起挑战，选战起步阶段她在民调中仅有可怜的6%支持率。“如果我当年迷信民调，我根本不可能参加人生第一次竞选，我们今天也不会坐在这里交谈了。”但当最终爆冷胜选、第一次坐进地区检察官的办公室时，巨大的震撼涌上心头：“天啊，我现在居然是一个美国大城市的民选地区检察官了。”
在哈里斯看来，外界常说的冒名顶替心理，往往源于一个人在被公众赋予重权时所秉持的真正谦逊——明白权力和职责关乎大众福祉，而非满足个人私欲。然而，当一个人在权力阶梯上越走越高、频繁进出那些被外界视为不可企及的权力中枢时，神秘感便会彻底消散。哈里斯直言，当你与那些看似无懈可击的高层权贵平起平坐时就会发现，“没有任何人是真正不可触碰的神；每个人身上其实都沾着一层尘土，并不是谁都那么光鲜耀眼。”认识到这一点，恰恰是一种巨大的精神解脱。
---
### [19:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1160s) 击碎天花板：当他们以为我是来找老板的
主持人提起勒布朗·詹姆斯（LeBron James）曾在社交平台上分享过一张集齐历任副总统肖像的照片，画面中几乎全都是清一色的年长白人男性，这种高度固化的模式极易让后发者产生认知偏差，误以为“如果不长成这个样子，就无法胜任这项工作”。哈里斯对此深有共鸣并进一步指出，真正的障碍不仅在于人们加诸于自身的内在心理设限，更在于外界由刻板印象构筑的冰冷藩篱——大众潜意识里早已为特定职位预设了固定的面孔。
她在职业生涯中曾多次直面这种由偏见带来的轻视。哈里斯回忆，在许多他人尚不认识她的场合，当她迈进会议室时，对方往往先入为主地把她当成随行助理，甚至直截了当地对她说“他们正在等她的大脑或老板进来”。哈里斯强调，作为职场中经常打破先例的先行者，你往往是整间董事会、法庭或会议室里“唯一”一个非典型面孔的人。她经常以此告诫那些受她指导的年轻人：“绝不要因为别人眼界的局限，而给自己的潜能设限。”
### [21:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1305s) 踏入房间的底气：那些相信你与众不同的人
面对进入一个可能没有任何人与自己背景、外貌或生活经历相似的会议室时，哈里斯给出了坚定的建议：必须昂首挺胸、收起肩膀走进去，心里要清楚有无数未能在场的人正为你感到骄傲，并期待你发出属于他们的声音。在面对未知与陌生审视的环境中，必须学会运用心理工具，最关键的一点是“千万不要带着‘我的价值不会被认可’的预设走进去”。人们往往需要审视并平衡两件事：究竟是外界强加了限制，还是我们在自我设限。
谈到具体的心理支撑工具，哈里斯回忆起两位对她一生至关重要的人物：一位是她的一年级小学老师弗朗西丝·威尔逊夫人（Mrs. Frances Wilson），威尔逊夫人后来甚至出席了她的法学院毕业典礼；另一位则是她的母亲，母亲总是平静而有力地叮嘱她：“绝不要让任何人定义你是谁，由你来告诉他们你是谁。”现场主持人展示出相关旧照片时，哈里斯惊喜地认出了照片中在法学院毕业典礼上的威尔逊夫人和母亲。她感慨道，几乎所有取得成功的人背后都有一个共同的钥匙——曾有至少一个人（无论父母、老师、邻居还是牧师）坚信你是特别的。“哪怕你并不是真的那么出众，但只要他们那样说了，而你也相信了他们。”这种被赋予的信念不仅催生了自信，也带来了一份责任感。哈里斯强调，社会与社区应当向所有孩子传递这种“你很特别”的信号，并配以切实的资源支持，这样社会才会变得更加坚韧。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 构筑内心底气的心智模型
accDescr: 展示从重要他人的信任到打破限制、在未知环境中立足的心智闭环
subgraph External["重要他人的赋能"]
A["导师与亲人信念<br/>（如母亲、威尔逊老师）"] --> B["建立自我认同：<br/>'我相信他们认为我是特别的'"]
end
subgraph Internal["心理调适与行动"]
B --> C["打破限制：<br/>摒弃'自我设限'与'价值不被认可'的预设"]
C --> D["昂首步入关键场合：<br/>承载缺席者的期盼并勇敢发声"]
end
```
---
### [25:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1537s) 领导者的姿态、逻辑与外在得体
被问及从24岁到如今在举手投足与讲话节奏上如何赢得尊重时，主持人注意到哈里斯在讲话时从不慌张抢话，而很多职场年轻新人为了掩饰自己占用的时间往往语速急促。哈里斯解释，沟通的关键在于“概念上的明确”，这并不意味着每句话都要提前彩排，但心中必须清楚自己想要传达的核心意图是什么；尤其面对复杂的议题，要学会在大脑中对问题进行逻辑拆解与解构，从而有条不紊地阐述。
关于外在形象与着装的重要性，哈里斯坦言“遗憾的是，外表确实重要”。在这个现实的世界里，一个人推门而入的瞬间就决定了第一印象，甚至包括是否守时——人们会看手表或手机来确认你是否准时到达，并以此评判你的品格。谈到衣着，哈里斯提到自己在非裔教会（Black church）长大的经历，在那里人们总是盛装出席，“精心打扮是个人尊严的折射，也是对你所处环境的一种尊重”。
- **沟通法则**：不必死记硬背台词，但必须在大脑中预先拆解复杂问题，确保表达具有清晰的逻辑框架。
- **守时与品格**：踏入会议室的时间点往往直接被他人用作评判专业度与个人品格的隐形标尺。
- **衣着哲学**：外表呈现的是自尊与体面，反映出对自己以及当前场合的敬重。
---
### [27:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1677s) 2019年退选与特工电影般的副总统面试
回顾政治生涯，哈里斯在2019年1月启动了总统竞选，但最终在同年12月退选。被问及幕后原因时，她直截了当地表示：“主要是因为我们的竞选资金耗尽了。”虽然中途折戟，但这趟历程让她吸取了极其宝贵的竞选经验。随后在新冠疫情高峰期，她接到了当时已锁定民主党提名的乔·拜登打来的FaceTime视频通话，正式邀请她担任竞选搭档。
在接到正式邀请前，副总统候选人的遴选过程极度隐秘，宛如一部“谍战大片”。由于媒体记者对候选人短名单紧追不舍，哈里斯当时在华盛顿特区先是由助理开车送至一家购物中心，接着换乘另一辆由拜登团队助理驾驶的车辆，在城中迂回绕行，最后从一所隐秘住宅的后门悄悄进入。屋内门窗紧闭、拉紧窗帘，她就在这种完全封闭的环境下完成了长谈面试。当时她与丈夫道格（Doug）居住在华盛顿的公寓里，楼下常年停着媒体暗中蹲守的无标识货车；疫情期间两人想出门散步透气时，甚至还会故意走上前打趣地问车里的记者：“我们要去买咖啡，需要帮你们带点什么吗？”
更具戏剧性的是拜登打来正式电话的那一天。哈里斯的一位女性好友从弗吉尼亚州的房子带来了一大箱新鲜的夏末成熟番茄，酷爱下厨的哈里斯正满心欢喜地准备把它们全部熬成意大利番茄酱（marinara）冷冻起来。就在这时，拜登的电话打了进来。她毫不犹豫地答应了邀请，结果短短几秒钟内，拜登的竞选团队就手捧一摞厚厚的活页夹鱼贯而入，所有人戴着口罩坐满客厅，立刻开始竞选部署会议。哈里斯笑着回忆，因为自己极度讨厌浪费食物，那天每个参会人员离开公寓时，手里都被她塞了几个新鲜的大番茄。
---
### [30:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1847s) 严苛的政治政审与二号人物的重量
作为亲自经历过“面试他人”与“被人面试”的政治人物，哈里斯指出副总统选拔走到最终面谈阶段时，候选名单通常已被压缩至大约三个人，因此最终决定人选的往往是“两人之间的化学反应（chemistry）”。此时核心在于确定双方能否建立起真正的信任、能否同频共振地作为政治伙伴并肩作战，因为所有的底细审查在此之前都已经尘埃落定。
谈及背景审查（vetting），哈里斯将其形容为一场极其漫长而彻底的“政治肠镜检查（colonoscopy）”。在她作为副总统候选人接受调查期间，曾面对由专业律师团队进行的长达9小时的高压面审，从个人税务、财务细节到过往几十年的全部职业履历，每一处细节都被放在显微镜下无死角地盘问。
对于副总统这一职位的实际体验，哈里斯表示任何事情都无法真正让人对它做好完全的准备。作为美国历史上第49任副总统（此前仅有48人担任过该职），这是一份极其特殊的权力与职责——作为国家政权的第二号人物（number two in command），肩上承担的责任分量极其沉重，其严肃性远超外界的想象。
### [32:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1969s) 副总统职权的演变与“白宫幕僚法则”
卡玛拉·哈里斯回顾了美国副总统职位的历史演变。在经历肯尼迪遇刺和尼克松辞职等一系列动荡后，吉米·卡特总统做出了一个制度性决定：必须赋予副总统更大的实权与责任，以确保一旦总统发生意外，国家政权能够平稳交接。正因如此，沃尔特·蒙代尔（Walter Mondale）成为了美国历史上第一位在白宫西翼（West Wing）拥有独立办公室的副总统。这一职位的职责极其繁重且关键，涵盖代表本届政府与各国元首会晤、在全美各地宣讲执政方针，以及面对形形色色对国家寄予厚望的民众。
主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特随后提到哈里斯的回忆录《107天》（*107 Days*），指出书中一段令人震惊却又符合人性的揭露：部分白宫总统幕僚由于将哈里斯视为潜在威胁，甚至在暗中压制她的声量与成就。哈里斯证实了政坛一直流传的一条潜规则：无论属于哪个政党，前任总统幕僚长在向继任总统幕僚长交接时，交代的第一条铁律往往就是“盯紧副总统（Rule number one, watch the vice president）”。由于哈里斯在2020年党内初选中曾与乔·拜登同台竞争，她从一开始就清醒地意识到，团队绝不会想当然地信任她，她必须一次又一次、反复去证明自己的忠诚。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 白宫内部权力博弈与防范机制
accDescr: 展现从历史白宫潜规则到拜登幕僚对哈里斯忠诚度防范与打压的逻辑链条
subgraph Heritage["历史演变与西翼潜规则"]
A["卡特确立副总统西翼实权<br/>(防范继任真空)"] --> B["白宫幕僚长交接潜规则:<br/>'第一条规则：盯紧副总统'"]
end
subgraph Friction["党内初选隔阂与信任赤字"]
B --> C["哈里斯曾是初选竞争对手"]
C --> D["忠诚度无法被默认<br/>必须反复自证"]
end
subgraph Suppression["舆论打压与零和博弈"]
D --> E["幕僚借负面舆论遏制其锋芒"]
E --> F["拒绝动用总统级公关资源防御攻击"]
end
```
### [35:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2114s) 零和博弈：白宫幕僚对成就的打压与舆论弃防
巴特利特援引书中的犀利控诉：总统的核心幕僚不仅对针对哈里斯的负面舆论推波助澜，甚至乐见其成，似乎打定主意要“挫挫她的锐气”。哈里斯坦言，这种做法极具破坏性，完全是自相矛盾的反效果。她早在任期中就有所察觉，但在大选结束后，她听到了更多具体的内幕细节。尤其在面对媒体不公、甚至失实的攻击时，白宫西翼的反应异常冷漠，完全没有出面辟谣或为她辩护的意愿。
哈里斯指出，总统麾下的团队规模和公关资源相比副总统是极其悬殊的，本有充裕的手段迅速平息对她的攻击，然而这些资源却被扣留不用。巴特利特质疑道，捍卫副总统难道不符合拜登自身的利益吗？毕竟两人同舟共济，副总统越强势，政府胜选连任的筹码就越大。哈里斯对此深有同感：“我们荣辱与共（We rose and fell together）。”然而许多幕僚却深陷狭隘的职场零和思维，信奉“若她光芒过盛，拜登就会被掩盖”。这种短视且格局低下的内耗，最终直接阻碍了外界了解哈里斯在任期间所取得的诸多政绩，令她和长期了解她履历的同僚感到无比挫败与心痛。
- **庞大的资源鸿沟**：白宫为总统配备的宣传与媒体公关资源远远碾压副总统办公室，但面对恶意抹黑，这些国家级资源却未被动用以提供保护。
- **《107天》第47与51页的指控**：幕僚认为哈里斯如果大放异彩，拜登的光彩就会被削弱；为了让拜登处于绝对中心，他们系统性地弱化甚至封锁了哈里斯的政绩宣传。
### [38:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2316s) 复杂关系与“辩论特训”：菲利普扮演的假特朗普
谈及与拜登本人的私人交情，哈里斯表示两人依然是朋友，关系良好，拜登几天前还特意致电祝她生日快乐。但她同时直白地承认，这段搭档关系“极其复杂（very complicated）”。她对拜登抱有深厚的感情，但在某些关键时刻，拜登也曾让她深感失望，甚至引发了她的愤怒。
其中最典型的例子，发生在她与唐纳德·特朗普进行总统辩论的当天。哈里斯在书中详述了这段从未公开的经过。为了迎战这场赌注极高的辩论，团队开展了近乎残酷的“辩论特训营（debate camp）”。在辩论营里，长期共事的核心幕僚菲利普·雷恩斯（Philippe Reines）负责扮演特朗普。菲利普化上橘色的假肤色妆容，系着标志性的超长红领带，在整个模拟过程中从不出戏，用极其尖酸刻薄的方式全天候攻击哈里斯。这种严苛的封闭式演练旨在“先击垮你，再将你重塑”，团队以此确保她能承受住任何不可预知的羞辱与冲击。
### [41:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2497s) 辩论日那通令人震惊与愤怒的总统来电
在经历了漫长高强度的辩论集训后，决战当天上午，团队给哈里斯吃下定心丸，明确告诉她：“你已经完全准备好了。”随后，哈里斯在酒店房间内经历了长达数小时的发型与妆容打理。就在她与丈夫道格·埃姆霍夫（Doug Emhoff）等待入场时，白宫打来了电话，通知拜登总统希望在赛前与她通话打气。
哈里斯原本满心期待这会是一通鼓舞士气、同仇敌忾的动员通话（"buck me up and go get him"）。然而，拜登在电话接通后仅草草鼓励了一两句，紧接着话锋一转，开始滔滔不绝地向她抱怨起宾夕法尼亚州的一群人——拜登称那些人正在四处说哈里斯的坏话，起因竟然是他们听说哈里斯曾在背后说拜登的坏话。
挂断电话的那一刻，哈里斯整个人陷入了难以置信的震惊与愤怒中。她强调，全世界与特朗普正面对决过的只有希拉里·克林顿和拜登本人，拜登比任何人都清楚站在那个舞台上的精神重压与政治赌注。而在哈里斯即将走上赛场、且特朗普未承诺参与下一场辩论的千钧一发之际，总统打来的电话却全然围绕着他个人的得失与风评。
- **辩论前的致命干扰**：在决定大选走势的关键数小时前，这通突如其来的指责电话完全破坏了原本专注的备战氛围。
- **自私的动机剖析**：哈里斯总结道，拜登的行事动机纯粹是“完全围绕他自己（all about himself）”，他丝毫没有考虑到这次通话会对哈里斯当晚的心理状态与辩论表现造成何种冲击。
- **历史遗产的羁绊**：即便拜登确实希望哈里斯赢得大选，核心动因也在于她是唯一能延续并保护他个人政治遗产的人选。巴特利特感叹身处权力巅峰之人往往极度自我中心，哈里斯平静且笃定地予以认同：“事实的确如此，我亲眼见证了这一切。”
### [44:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2679s) 拜登灾难性辩论之夜与背后的隐忧
主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）回顾了卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）的从政生涯，感叹她多年来始终致力于服务大众，甚至放弃了诸多潜在的商业变现与经济机会，展现出当今政坛中罕见的真诚。随后话题转向 2024 年 6 月乔·拜登（Joe Biden）与唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）那场震惊全美的首场电视辩论。史蒂芬坦言，作为一个从小痴迷于美国政治的英国旁观者，他看着辩论直播感到极度不可思议——拜登在逻辑表达和思维连贯性上明显陷入了极为艰难的挣扎，然而当时的民主党阵营却仿佛集体视而不见、粉饰太平。更令他震惊的是，特朗普在这场辩论中罕见地表现出了某种程度的“克制与收敛”，没有像往常那样横冲直撞，而是精准地抓住了拜登的弱点。
哈里斯透露，辩论当晚她正身处洛杉矶费尔蒙酒店（Fairmont Hotel）的套房内。为了应对高强度的观察工作，她推掉了酒店原本准备的蔬菜生冷拼盘（Crudité），果断决定“今晚必须吃披萨”，并召集了一个极为紧凑的核心智囊团队一同观战。因为辩论一结束，她就必须立刻代表白宫和总统连续接受四场全美主流媒体的直播专访。
在辩论打响之前，拜登曾从位于戴维营的“辩论集训营”给哈里斯通了电话。哈里斯在通话中敏锐地察觉到“有些不对劲”：
- 拜登在声音和状态上明显流露出一丝异样与沉重。
- 哈里斯直觉拜登“内心深处根本不想参加这场辩论”，很可能是被竞选幕僚劝说乃至硬推上场的。
- “就像任何比赛一样，无论是商业竞标还是体育竞技，你必须发自内心地渴望取胜。如果你打心底里不想站在那个竞技场上，表现必然会受到毁灭性的打击。”
- 哈里斯深知任何辩论都会出现口误或引述错误的数据，她原本做好了常规的“公关扫尾”心理准备，但当屏幕上的溃败真实上演时，其惨烈程度演变成了一场载入史册的“车祸现场”。
---
### [48:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2888s) 辩论心理学与哈里斯迎战特朗普的策略
史蒂芬将美国总统辩论形容为极具启发性的人类心理学实验。在短暂的高压交锋中，一句机智的妙语（zinger）往往能彻底定格公众记忆，例如贝拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）当年反驳米特·罗姆尼（Mitt Romney）时嘲讽军队早已不再依靠“马匹与刺刀”，亦或是著名的“装满女性候选人的文件夹”。从营销学的角度来看，极简有力的词汇搭配完美的节奏与肢体表达，具有瞬间改变选民认知的魔力。当史蒂芬问及哈里斯在随后迎战特朗普时采取了何种破局策略时，哈里斯揭示了她刻意设计的心理战术。
走进辩论场走上讲台、与特朗普握手致意后，哈里斯在讲台提供的空白便签纸上用笔画了一个大大的笑脸符号。这一举动并非即兴起意，而是她在集训营就确立的心理暗示——她下定决心要以“享受其中”的心态去打这场仗。哈里斯认为，在这类针锋相对的电视对决中，谁能够显得游刃有余、享受过程，谁就占据了心理上风；相反，焦虑与愤怒只会让人破绽百出。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 辩论博弈心理机制对比
accDescr: 对比哈里斯与特朗普在辩论场上的不同心理战策略与效果
subgraph HarrisStrategy["哈里斯的心理战术"]
H1["讲台画笑脸暗示自己"] --> H2["展现幽默与游刃有余"]
H2 --> H3["激怒对手暴露其可预测性"]
end
subgraph TrumpReaction["特朗普的应对与反应"]
T1["情绪紧绷且容易受激"] --> T2["抛出离奇荒谬言论"]
T2 --> T3["陷入防守与愤怒神态"]
end
HarrisStrategy -.->|心理施压| TrumpReaction
```
- **幽默感是生存机制**：哈里斯强调，生活与高压政治同理，“面对沉重与荒诞，必须学会捕捉其中的幽默感，否则整个人都会被压垮”。
- **胜者心态**：镜头前的从容微笑无法伪装，必须真正进入享受挑战的状态，才能让对手显得焦躁、挫败且极易被操控。
---
### [50:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3023s) “吃猫吃狗”谣言背后的声东击西术
辩论中最荒诞的高潮莫过于特朗普在数千万观众面前宣称“海地移民在俄亥俄州斯普林菲尔德吃宠物猫狗”。哈里斯回忆，在进入辩论闭关训练期间，她与外界信息存在时间差，完全不知道极右翼舆论场正在发酵这个离奇谣言。直到辩论即将开场前的最后一刻，两位核心团队成员神色匆匆地跑来提醒她：他们注意到特朗普乘机抵达时，身旁紧跟着该谣言的主要散播者。
幕僚们急忙向她通报：“‘老板’，我们得赶紧告诉你一件事——对方阵营最近一直在疯传海地移民吃猫吃狗的说法。既然那个人在飞机上，这很可能是他登台前脑子里听到的最后一件事，他极有可能在辩论中脱口而出。”哈里斯当时第一反应是荒谬得难以置信：“你在开玩笑吗？这也太离谱了！”然而果不其然，特朗普真的在全国电视直播中将这一阴谋论宣之于口。
哈里斯指出，这正是特朗普行之有效且危险的宣传套路——“制造耸人听闻的荒谬言论（Misdirection）”。
- **转移焦点**：当媒体和公众的注意力全被“吃宠物”这种荒唐离奇的话题绑架并反复争论时，根本没有人再去追问：“特朗普到底有什么具体方案能帮助美国工薪阶层降低高昂的生活成本？”
- **舆论操控**：公众的议程设置被完全带偏，真正关乎国计民生的严肃政策讨论瞬间沦为边缘背景板。
---
### [52:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3169s) 荒谬营销论与特朗普的“煤气灯操纵”
史蒂芬结合自己在商业营销领域十余年的洞察，与哈里斯的分析产生了强烈共鸣。史蒂芬分享了他书中提出的观点：“定义一个品牌的往往不是实用性，而是看似无用的荒谬感（Useless absurdity defines a brand more than useful practicality）”。他举例说明：
- 介绍一家规模巨大的健身房时，人们记住的绝不是设备参数，而是“那里居然有一面100英尺高的室内攀岩墙”。
- 在他创办的公司里，媒体来访时从不在意优秀的商业案例或顶尖客户，而是疯狂抓拍那座“直接滑入海洋球池的巨大蓝色滑梯”。
- 政治传播亦是如此：特朗普深谙此道，擅长通过荒谬、出格的言论抢夺全部眼球，同时也是一位极具天赋的“标签大师”，通过“瞌睡乔（Sleepy Joe）”等极简标签精准打击对手。
对于这种打法，哈里斯评价特朗普确实具有极高的舆论操纵天分，绝不能轻视对手。针对史蒂芬“如何击败一个深谙荒诞游戏规则的对手”的提问，哈里斯给出了她的核心解法：
- **拒绝被带偏，死磕真实问题**：不被离奇的戏码牵着鼻子走，持续不懈地把公众注意力拉回到现实生活正在发生的事情上。
- **解构“煤气灯操纵”（Gaslighting）**：哈里斯直言，这个时代最契合特朗普行为的词就是“煤气灯操纵”——通过公然歪曲事实、撒谎、寻找替罪羊和制造噱头，彻底掩盖真相与治理危机。对抗这种战术，唯有层层拆解谎言，暴露其掩盖政策真空的本质。
### [54:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3276s) 恐惧政治学与认知战：为何理性的事实难以战胜情绪
哈里斯（Kamala Harris）深入剖析了唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）惯用的政治话术与推卸策略。她指出，大规模驱逐移民的举措不仅伤害了无数勤劳工作的人，甚至在执行过程中抓捕了许多美国公民。然而，特朗普向选民灌输的底层逻辑是：“你的生活困境，全是由那些比你更弱势、更无权无势的人造成的。”通过将矛头引向弱者，大众便不会去关注那些真正掌握权力的核心阶层。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）一针见血地指出，这种叙事之所以屡试不爽，是因为“它确实奏效了”。哈里斯承认这一点，但坚信这种表象与政治欺瞒终会破灭——例如随着全面关税政策落地，到了年底假期，人们发现货架上的玩具绝大多数都产自中国时，现实便会敲响警钟。然而眼下，假信息的迅猛蔓延让揭露真相变得举步维艰。
巴特利特结合脑科学原理解释了为何这种煽动性策略极具威力：人类大脑的前额叶皮层（Prefrontal Cortex）负责理性与逻辑，而边缘系统中的杏仁核（Amygdala）则是情绪中枢，负责处理恐惧等核心感受，后者在记忆留存与吸引注意力方面拥有压倒性优势。若有人高呼“那些外来移民是强奸犯和杀人犯”，这种强烈的威胁信号会瞬间抓住听众的感官；相比之下，哪怕民主党列举详尽的数据，证明美国是全球富裕国家中在疫情后经济复苏最快的一个，人们十秒钟之内就会将其忘得一干二净。巴特利特以神经科学家塔利·沙罗特（Tali Sharot）的对话为例：即便专业人士深知疫苗不会导致自闭症，但当在电视辩论中看到特朗普绘声绘色地描绘一个原本美丽健康的3岁幼童在被一根粗针头注射后患上自闭症的故事时，人们心底仍会不可遏止地泛起一丝恐惧。因此，一个棘手的问题摆在面前：面对完全由恐惧与情绪驱动的心理战，民主党究竟该如何用理智与逻辑取胜？
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 政治传播中的两种认知路径对比
accDescr: 对比理性逻辑传播路径与情绪恐惧煽动路径在受众心理接受层面的差异机制
subgraph 理性说服路径["理性说服路径（民主党常态）"]
A["经济与政策事实数据"] --> B["前额叶皮层（理性分析）"]
B --> C["记忆衰减极快，说服转化低"]
end
subgraph 情绪煽动路径["情绪煽动路径（民粹主义策略）"]
D["恐惧故事与替罪羊叙事"] --> E["杏仁核（情绪中枢激发）"]
E --> F["形成深刻恐慌记忆，调动选民投票"]
end
```
### [57:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3475s) 虚假信息泛滥与媒体责任
面对巴特利特的提问，哈里斯直言，要解答这一困境，首先必须严肃审视媒体的责任与财团控制媒体（Corporate-owned media）的生态。她提到，自己曾多次劝导那些为她投票的支持者：当与支持特朗普的亲友发生激烈辩论甚至关系破裂时，切忌假定对方是在与自己相同的“信息集合”（Set of Information）下做判断。事实虽有客观准绳（如二加二等于四），但不同群体所接收到的“事实拼图”早已被彻底割裂。
哈里斯回忆起自己在参议院情报委员会（Senate Intelligence Committee）任职的经历。在调查俄罗斯干预2016年美国大选的过程中，解密调查报告显示，敌对外国势力专门将黑人选民等特定群体作为定向误导的目标。外部势力精准利用了某些族群因历史遭遇而对政府产生的天然不信任感，刻意放大这种矛盾，企图破坏社会根基。哈里斯讽刺地指出：“突然之间，美国的种族问题变成了国家安全问题，所有人都不得不去面对它。”如今，无论是针对年轻选民，还是按种族、性别分类的精准定向投毒，虚假信息与定向误导（Mis- and Disinformation）都在算法助推下野蛮生长。哈里斯强调，民主党乃至全社会必须行动起来，对社交媒体巨头和信息分发平台提出更加严格的问责标准。
- 哈里斯在参议院情报委员会参与的调查证实，外国干预力量精准利用人口结构特征（如黑人群体）定向投放挑拨信息。
- 选民内部的情感分裂，很大程度上源于算法推荐和碎片化媒体所制造的信息茧房，使得民众已不再共享同一个客观现实底线。
### [01:01:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3690s) 播客生态的崛起与缺席 Joe Rogan 节目的争议
在插播完赞助商 Fiverr Pro 的合作实验后，对话转向了影响力与日俱增的“独立媒体”（Independent Media）。巴特利特指出，播客媒介在本次大选中扮演了颠覆性的角色，彻底重塑了权力传播的规则——二十年前，美国副总统几乎不可能坐进一个年轻人的旧厨房里做深度访谈，但去中心化的平台与低成本制作使得播客掌握了巨大的分发能力。特朗普在乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）长达三个小时的节目中赢得了数千万甚至上亿次观看，极大地拉近了他与大众的距离；与此同时，哈里斯当时是否登上《The Joe Rogan Experience》成为了选战中最具争议的话题之一。
哈里斯正面回应了关于为何没能成行的传言，直言当时幕后“玩了很多花招与博弈”（a lot of games being played）。她坚称自己从一开始就非常希望去上乔·罗根的节目，因为播客已经成为大众获取信息的绝对主流，其穿透力毋庸置疑。当时团队内部许多人极力劝阻她参与，认为罗根早已心向特朗普，此行不仅不会有实质收获，反而会陷入被动围攻。但哈里斯对此持开放态度，正如她坚持走入布雷特·贝尔（Bret Baier）主持的福克斯新闻（Fox News）专访一样，她的逻辑是：即便平台或主持人带有偏见，但只要受众中有一部分人保持开放心态，自己就应当站上那个舞台去争取他们、直接对话。然而，由于双方在日程安排以及录制地点等问题上的拉扯推诿，这次专访最终遗憾告吹。面对巴特利特的追问，哈里斯坦诚自己并不排斥乔·罗根的听众，原本非常期待能以最直接的方式向他们阐述自己的愿景。
### [01:04:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3871s) 没上乔·罗根播客的真相与竞选投入产出比
卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）直接回应了为何在2024年大选期间未能做客乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）的顶级播客节目《The Joe Rogan Experience》。她澄清，外界传言的“不想去”或“摆架子”完全是误解：“我想去做这期节目，我也觉得做了会很有帮助。”真正决定放弃的核心原因在于残酷的“投资回报率”（return on investment）权衡：大选进入白热化阶段，候选人只有一个人，时间是最稀缺的资源。当时摆在面前的选择是：是花费整整5个小时往返德克萨斯州去录制播客，还是把这整块宝贵的时间砸在关键摇摆州进行面对面的动员拉票？哈里斯坦承，在竞选的关键当口，面子和排场毫无意义，她根本不在意“谁来找谁”，这纯粹是一场关于选票产出和时间分配的严酷算术。
主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）表达了不同看法。他认为，即便存在时间折损，竞选团队也理应100%促成这次露面。在极度极化的舆论场中，选民很容易被特定媒体环境塑造的刻板形象所困，而打破这种信息茧房最有效的方式，正是亲自踏入对方的领地。史蒂文以哈里斯此前接受福克斯新闻（Fox News）专访为例，指出那种直面尖锐质询的表现不仅能极大提振既有支持者的士气，更能让游离的独立选民看到候选人的真实特质。他相信乔·罗根会保持公正，并呼吁2028年大选的参选人都能勇于跨出舒适区。对此，哈里斯流露出了明确的懊悔：“我确实很后悔当时没有去录（I regret that we didn't do it）。”她补充道，从政这么多年，自己从来没有“因为感到不舒服就退缩”的特权。
谈及公关策略的时代演变，史蒂文指出，传统公关团队往往会把事情搞砸，过去20年企业高管和政客习惯把自己包装成封闭的“黑匣子”，由公关来精心粉饰形象；而在人人手持镜头的自媒体时代，公众要求的是“玻璃箱”般的彻底透明。哈里斯对此深表赞同，并表示这正是她出版回忆录《107天》（*107 Days*）的原因——那段竞选历史必定会被载入史册，她绝不允许自己的声音在这段美国历史上缺席，任由他人来构建叙事。
### [01:07:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4062s) 2028年是否再次参选总统与参选的代价
面对史蒂文抛出的重磅问题——民调显示她在民主党内遥遥领先，2028年是否会再次竞选总统——哈里斯给出了克制而谨慎的回答。史蒂文直言“你心里其实很清楚是否有这个召唤”，哈里斯则回应称自己目前正全力投入新书的巡回签售。她透露，自己之所以选择不竞选加利福尼亚州州长，就是因为当前不想陷入一种“功利交易”（transactional）的政治状态：“我不想现在出现在公众面前，仅仅是因为我要求他们投票给我。”
当被问及“参选”与“不参选”的权衡依据时，哈里斯阐述了内心的标准：
- **参选的理由**：关键在于自己能否带来实质改变（make a difference）。如果她坚信自己作为美国总统能够提供积极向上的力量，让美国走上正确的轨道，她就会义无反顾——这正是她上一次参选的初衷。
- **不参选的代价**：竞选总统极度艰难，会对家庭造成巨大消耗。“竞选总统绝不适合胆小脆弱的人（not for the faint of heart），你不仅要学会出拳，更必须扛得住挨揍。”更痛苦的是精神上的折磨：在当下的舆论环境中，只要你站上顶峰，就不可避免地会被严重误解，甚至招致素未谋面之人的刻骨仇恨。她强调，要承受住竞选和担任总统的双重煎熬，从政的动机必须超越个人的权力、虚荣和特权感，必须是为了某种高于自身的崇高目标。
### [01:12:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4322s) 败选之夜的震惊与对国家未来的剧痛
史蒂文询问，在大选开票当夜、得知特朗普即将胜选时，屋内的哈里斯究竟是何种状态。哈里斯坦言，大选前一天她一直坚信自己会赢，因此当现实袭来时，她陷入了极度的震惊（state of shock）。那一刻，竞选经理打来电话，沉痛告知：“地图上的数字显示，我们还需要20万张选票，但我们找不到了。”
得知大局已定后，哈里斯整个人几乎说不出话，只能难以置信地反复重复一句话：“我的天，我的天，我的天（My God, my God, my God）。”哈里斯神情动容地表示，这种痛楚除了多年前母亲逝世带来的无尽悲痛之外，是她一生中从未经历过的深重创伤。她强调，这绝非输掉一场政治比赛的胜负欲挫败，而是源于她无比清楚这场选举结果将给国家和普通民众带来怎样不可挽回的灾难与伤害。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 2024大选失利因果链路
accDescr: 展示选情恶化、团队失利与哈里斯对随后政策恶果的预判传导过程
subgraph 竞选终局
A["开票夜票数盘整"] --> B["选情告负：<br/>缺少关键20万张选票"]
B --> C["哈里斯陷入极大震惊<br/>反复默念 'My God'"]
end
subgraph 预见到的国家灾难
C --> D["平民生活受创：<br/>失去医保、教育与特殊儿童支持"]
C --> E["国家体制崩塌：<br/>司法部政治工具化、机构被清洗"]
end
```
谈及特朗普重返白宫后的执政现实，哈里斯难掩悲愤，逐一列举了正在发生的动荡与破坏：
- **贫富悬殊与医疗剥夺**：特朗普正在为他的富豪朋友们大兴土木建造宴会厅，而与此同时，数以百万计的普通平民正因为无力承担高额保费而即将失去基本医疗保险。
- **司法政治化与精英噤声**：司法部（DOJ）正被武器化，沦为打击政治异己的工具；大批工业巨头、顶尖大学、律师事务所及媒体机构因恐惧报复，正在全面妥协退让。
- **重创公共教育与弱势群体**：联邦教育部遭到严重削弱，低收入家庭儿童的免费午餐计划面临剥夺。哈里斯特别提到，许多特殊需求儿童的母亲如今陷入绝望，因为孩子们连最基本的个别化教育方案（IEP，Individualized Education Program）都被取消，而受到伤害的全都是毫无自卫能力的幼童。
### [01:15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4500s) 超越单一人物的系统性危机：Project 2025 与保守派数十年的布局
卡玛拉·哈里斯谈及当下社会中最脆弱的群体正承受着巨大的痛苦，特别是那些抚养特殊需要儿童的家庭。她动情地描述了这些父母在情感、体力和经济上所背负的沉重负担：当政府连针对这群孩子的特殊教育项目援助都无法保障时，当权者却在白宫忙着修建“金碧辉煌的宴会厅（gilded ballroom）”。这种反差所带来的伤害是触目惊心的。哈里斯指出，特朗普曾许诺在上任第一天就降价，然而现实中关税政策不断冲击工薪阶层，食品杂货价格飙升，通货膨胀加剧，失业率不降反升。
更重要的是，哈里斯警示民主党绝不能陷入“一叶障目”的误区。她对主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特强调，民主党未来最大的失误将是“忽视这绝非仅关乎白宫里那一个人”的事实。公众所目睹的高速推进的政策破坏，实际上是一场酝酿了数十年的系统性政纲的快速落地。“Project 2025 不是凭空掉下来的，”哈里斯直言，对公共教育的攻击、联邦党人学会（Federalist Society）与传统基金会（Heritage Foundation）的幕后运作、选区划分的操弄（gerrymandering）以及对最高法院的填塞与重塑，都是早已谋划好的战略。这套保守派议程不会因某一个政客的去留而终结，绝大多数工薪平民承受着深刻的破坏，唯有一小撮依附于权力中心的核心圈子从中攫取了巨大利益。
---
### [01:17:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4629s) 民主党的反思与政策优先顺序之失：从拜登退选到民生核心议题
史蒂芬·巴特利特从客观观察者的角度提出质疑，指出美国两党制就像一场残酷的国际象棋棋局，民主党输掉了这场较量并正在承受惨痛后果，因此民主党必须承担起自我责任，彻底整顿内部。他引用了哈里斯在新书第 46 页中坦承的内容：哈里斯曾以为不在早期公开指出拜登的问题、不提早劝其退选是一种“体面与宽容（grace）”，但事后反思，自己当时的沉默在某种程度上其实是“鲁莽且不负责任的（reckless）”。哈里斯对此坦然赞同，承认这确实是自己需要反省的责任。
在被问及民主党若想重拾民心应当做何改变时，哈里斯反思了执政时期的政策推进优先顺序。尽管拜登-哈里斯政府达成了意义重大的两党基础设施法案（旨在翻新全美拥有 150 年历史的老旧基建）以及《芯片法案》（CHIPS Act，重振美国本土半导体制造业），但哈里斯坦言，如果一切能够重来，她会把家庭政策置于最前线：
- **家庭政策优先**：应当首先落地延长儿童税收抵免（Child Tax Credit）、提供普惠性托儿服务以及带薪家庭假，从最贴近百姓痛点的生计问题抓起。
- **三明治一代支持**：在哈里斯接手候选人竞选的 107 天里，她主张让联邦医疗保险（Medicare）覆盖家庭照护服务，以减轻既要抚育幼童又要赡养年迈父母的“三明治一代”家庭的看护开销。
- **小企业税收支持**：她提出将初创小企业的税收抵免从原有的 5,000 美元大幅提升至 50,000 美元，因为现实中没有任何人能仅仅依靠 5,000 美元的税务宽减启动一家新企业。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 执政重点复盘与优先顺序反思
accDescr: 对比拜登政府实际优先事项与哈里斯复盘后认为应优先推进的民生政策。
subgraph 实际优先落地的事项
A["两党基础设施法案<br/>(翻新150年老旧基建)"]
B["芯片与科学法案 CHIPS Act<br/>(重振美国本土半导体制造业)"]
end
subgraph 哈里斯反思后主张的首要事项
C["儿童税收抵免延长与普惠托儿"]
D["带薪家庭假与三明治一代照护"]
E["初创小企业 $50,000 抵税额"]
end
A -.->|应调换推进顺序| C
B -.->|应让位于直接民生| D
```
---
### [01:19:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4766s) 左翼与创业精神的隔阂：反思未邀请埃隆·马斯克的失误
史蒂芬进一步尖锐提问：美国左翼在外界眼中是否已经被看作“创业精神的敌人（enemy of entrepreneurship）”？哈里斯承认，社会上的确存在这种固化的刻板印象，民主党必须正视并做出改变。她在书中明确谈及一个典型案例：此前白宫举办美国电动汽车制造商峰会时，居然没有邀请埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk），哈里斯直言“我认为不邀请他是一个错误”。
哈里斯坦陈，自己并不是马斯克的拥趸（"I'm no fan of his"），但客观上必须钦佩他作为创新者的成就，以及特斯拉对美国本土电动汽车制造业所做出的巨大贡献。她强调，当时白宫召集了所有其他美国本土电动汽车制造商，理应将马斯克包括在内。她认为卓越的领导者在做决定时，动机必须是追求“更大的公共利益（greater good）”，必须具备超越个人恩怨与主观好恶的胸襟与细微辨析力（nuance），绝不能因为对方在某些方面令人不悦就全盘封杀，否则只会进一步加剧社会撕裂。
---
### [01:20:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4846s) 激进的改革设想：将投票年龄降至 16 岁与倾听 Z 世代的声音
谈及民主党需要展现更具胆识的魄力，哈里斯提出了一个极具颠覆性的政策主张：将法定投票年龄下调至 16 岁。面对主持人的探询，她详细拆解了背后的考量——Z 世代（大致在 13 岁至 27 岁之间）是承载国家与世界未来的关键一代，其人口规模已经超过了婴儿潮一代（Boomers），但他们的生存处境极为严峻：
- **极端现实困境**：他们自出生起就目睹着日益恶化的气候危机；因新冠疫情失去了大量关键的受教育阶段；在高校就读的专业即便毕业也往往难以换取维持生计的薪资。
- **气候焦虑蔓延**：他们创造了“气候焦虑（climate anxiety）”这一术语，不仅担忧未来买不起房，更恐惧房子会被极端天气摧毁，甚至对生育下一代感到绝望；预计他们一生中平均要更换 10 到 12 份工作。
哈里斯指出，这代年轻人对传统领导层的陈词滥调感到忍无可忍是完全合情合理的。政治体制中存在一个残酷的现实：政客的注意力往往只会被两大权力中心所左右——“投票率最高的群体”以及“开支票金额最大的金主”。如果赋予 16 岁及以上的年轻人投票权，政治议题就必须直面他们的迫切需求：应对气候危机、评估人工智能（AI）对未来劳动力的深远冲击，以及解决住房负担能力危机。她回顾 2024 年大选中整整有三分之一的选民没有投票，民主党必须深刻反省是否向这群人提供了真正大胆的解决方案，并思考如何通过播客等全新媒介更有效地触达大众。
---
### [01:23:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5002s) 展望 2028：痛苦沉淀后的自我疗愈与未来的政治抉择
针对未来的媒体策略，史蒂芬询问哈里斯若再次竞选，是否会走进受众更偏右翼的媒体环境，甚至直接做客乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）的节目。哈里斯爽快回应道：“就算我不参选，我也肯定愿意上乔·罗根的节目，我有很多话想说。”至于何时就 2028 年大选做出最终决断，哈里斯表示目前尚未设定具体的时间表，但大概率会在未来一年内决定——毕竟 2028 年 11 月是大选，党内初选在当年 6 月就会打响。
史蒂芬引导哈里斯回顾 2024 年败选当夜的情景：当时她坐在房间里，喉咙底下不断喃喃自语着“天啊，天啊（Oh god, oh god）”。史蒂芬追问，从那个绝望的时刻走到今天，她的心境与决心是否发生了倾斜？哈里斯沉思后承认这是一个极好的问题：
- **家人的态度**：如果在败选那一刻询问她的家人，大家一定会毫不犹豫地说“绝不再来（never again）”。
- **时间的疗愈**：随着时间流逝，包括她自己在内的所有人都有机会静下心来反思。哈里斯表示撰写新书《107天》（*107 Days*）起到了极大的宣泄和治愈作用（very cathartic），拉开时空距离逐渐抚平了竞选创伤的剧痛。
- **如同经历哀伤**：赞同史蒂芬将这种心境转变比作“哀伤的五个阶段”，哈里斯表示人们最终会走向接纳（acceptance），在此过程中理性审视自己该扮演的角色，并深刻总结“自己本可以做哪些不同的事情”。
### [01:25:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5105s) 创业盲区与赞助时刻：人力资源基础设施与红光护肤
在深入探讨政治与个人心路之前，史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）分享了自己在白手起家创办公司及投资众多初创项目时的深刻体会。他观察到，早期创始人普遍存在一个致命盲区——极少花心思在人力资源（HR）管理上。这并非出于轻率或不在乎，而是因为初创阶段的所有精力都被产品研发、客户拓展、团队扩张以及单纯的生存本能所占据。HR 事务往往因看似缺乏紧迫性而被不断后延，直到公司发生变故、陷入混乱，创始人才被迫面对突如其来的棘手对话。史蒂文指出，HR 是公司的核心底层基础设施，缺乏它整个架构都会动摇。随后，节目现场还插播了一段关于红光面罩的趣味互动，史蒂文打趣道自己曾被戴着红光面罩的伴侣吓到，以为那是用来吓人的道具，而如今自己已坚持使用该产品一年半来促进胶原蛋白生成。
### [01:27:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5234s) 卸下政治包袱：不再设防的“去滤镜”表达与揭开权力黑箱
史蒂文将话题拉回卡玛拉·哈里斯身上，敏锐地指出她在新书巡回宣传期间的沟通风格发生了显著转变：言辞变得愈发大胆、真实，甚至几次在公开场合因愤怒而提高嗓门，展现出一种完全“毫无顾忌、去滤镜化”（unfiltered）的状态。史蒂文直言，政客身上过度修饰的圆滑和精致感反而会产生负面效果，而播客的魅力正在于真实无伪饰。他单刀直入地问哈里斯：“现在的你是不是抱着一种‘去他的，无所谓了’的心态？”
哈里斯坦然承认了书里蕴含的这股能量。她深情地解释道，自己多年来一直身处权力的“巨兽腹地”（in the belly of the beast），深知美国总统大选的走向直接牵动着全球数十亿人的命运，然而这整个选拔机制在外界看来却极其晦涩模糊。她创作《107天》的核心意愿，就是为了彻底“揭开引擎盖”（lift up the hood），让公众清晰看清这台国家权力机器究竟是如何运转的。无论是记者、中学生，还是普通人的祖母，她希望所有人都能借此祛魅并看清真相，进而唤醒自身所蕴藏的力量。而要打破这种神秘感，就必须打破“有些事情不该公开谈论”的传统禁忌，以彻底透明的姿态面对大众。
### [01:29:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5369s) 绝不后悔参选：107天的拼搏与绝不向沮丧屈服的信念
当被问及在仅有107天备选通知的情况下是否后悔披挂上阵，哈里斯给出了极为坚定的否定回答：“我不后悔参选，我唯一的遗憾是时间太短，我们真心希望当时能有更多的时间。”即便事先知晓最终的失败结局，她依然会选择迎战。对她而言，这短短107天的选战唤醒了无数人心底的潜能与希望。
自竞选结束以来，大量男性、女性乃至年轻孩童纷纷走到她面前吐露心声——有人因为她的参选而决定竞选公职，有人受其激励决定报考法学院，还有无数家庭的孩子因为这场竞选被点燃了对未来的热情。哈里斯强调，那些积极向上的力量和乐观精神原本就沉睡在民众心中，107天的战役只是将其唤醒并凝聚在了一起。她借此向支持者发出强有力的呼吁：即便输掉了大选，精神也绝不能被打垮，因为一旦民众的意志被摧毁，对手才算取得了真正的胜利；正义与变革的抗争往往漫长，决不能在挫败面前缴械投降。
- 竞选周期：从接棒到正式投票仅有极其短暂的 107 天。
- 竞选反响：激发了众多支持者竞选公职、报考法学院的职业选择与社会参与度。
- 核心呼吁：“请不要让你们的精神被打败……那他们才算真正赢了。”
### [01:31:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5493s) 坚固的后盾：道格·埃姆霍夫与人生“核心圈”的力量
面对竞选夜团队告知“尚有20万张关键选票无法找齐”的绝望时刻，史蒂文拿出两张温馨的照片，询问哈里斯在那样的至暗时刻是如何向伴侣寻求依靠的。哈里斯谈及丈夫道格·埃姆霍夫（Doug Emhoff）时满怀温情，坦言丈夫就是自己真正的“定海神针”（my rock）。她赞扬道格是一个完全“自我实现”的强大男性，为人真实诚恳、毫无虚伪做作，兼具幽默感与坚定的忠诚，始终在背后给予她最大的鼓励。
借由自己的亲身经历，哈里斯向所有怀揣事业抱负的人提出了一条诚恳的人生建议：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 核心支持圈层构建图
accDescr: 展示建立人生核心支持圈层的作用与价值，从理解困境、接纳脆弱到重塑力量重返赛场。
subgraph Circle["构建核心支持圈"]
A["寻找高度理解你处境的极少数人<br/>(伴侣 / 家人 / 密友)"]
end
subgraph Support["提供无条件的情感避风港"]
B["私下接纳无法公开笑出的调侃"]
C["包容释放重压下的情绪与字眼"]
D["在摔倒滑落时善意调侃并扶你站起"]
end
subgraph Impact["持续赋能与人生韧性"]
E["重塑心理韧性，重新推你上场"]
F["从容应对起伏跌宕的人生全光谱"]
end
A --> B
A --> C
A --> D
B & C & D --> E
E --> F
```
哈里斯指出，没有人能在缺乏亲密支持系统的情况下独自斩获成功。生命本就包含起起伏伏的“全光谱”（the whole spectrum），而身边能有这样一群在你摔倒时敢于笑你、随即又全力把你拉起来推向战场的亲密伴侣或朋友，是走完艰难旅程的最大底气。
### [01:33:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5636s) 难以言说的重创：长达数月的沉默与大选之夜的暗流
谈及大选结果揭晓的那一晚，哈里斯透露夫妻两人当时都被巨大的震惊彻底击垮，甚至到了“语无伦次”的地步。令人难以置信的是，这种极度创伤带来的沉默持续了数月之久。在很长一段时间里，两人从未主动复盘或谈论过大选之夜的经历，直到哈里斯开始提笔撰写《107天》中关于选举之夜的章节时，他们才第一次打破沉默、敞开心扉面对那一夜的记忆。
正是在撰写该书的交流过程中，道格才向哈里斯透露了一件她此前完全不知晓的内幕：投票日当天，道格与哈里斯的妹夫托尼·韦斯特（Tony West）正在密歇根州前线进行最后的拉票动员。当时前线氛围异常热烈，所有人都反馈感觉极佳，道格与哈里斯通电话时也充满信心地表示“形势大好”。然而，就在他们乘车返回华盛顿特区的途中，一名在福克斯新闻（Fox News）担任评论员的民主党好友突然从其后方“作战室”（war room/boiler room）打来急电，警觉地询问他们到底听到了什么消息，并私下警告称，他在后台监测到的数据苗头非常不对劲，令人深感不安。这场选战的急转直下，早在结果公开前便已在暗流中初现端倪。
### [01:35:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5713s) 选举之夜道格的隐瞒与心不在焉的亲友晚宴
在选举之夜，卡玛拉·哈里斯对当时的真实选情恶化一无所知。当时全家人和团队都在全力冲刺竞选，丈夫道格·埃姆霍夫（Doug Emhoff）也和托尼（Tony）奔波在外。当道格回到充满亲友的家中时，哈里斯事后回想才意识到他当时神色有些反常。然而她不知道的是，道格当时刚刚从朋友处获知了福克斯新闻（Fox News）“作战室”（boiler room）内部传出的极其不利的选情消息。承受着巨大心理压力的道格没有对妻子透露半个字，而是一声不吭地走上楼冲澡并独自祈祷，企盼奇迹发生，局面能够峰回路转。
这种隐秘的巨大心事导致道格在接下来的整个聚会中完全神游物外。直到两人后来一起复盘并撰写书中相应章节时，哈里斯才获知这段插曲。哈里斯回忆起那晚传统的亲友晚宴，询问丈夫是否还记得同桌坐的是谁、自己何时站起来祝酒。道格却一口咬定她根本没有发表过祝酒词，甚至认为她是记混了以前在那个房间办过的其他晚宴。为了证明记忆无误，哈里斯特意翻出了当晚的照片——画面中清晰地记录着她站在那里向全场敬酒的瞬间。道格当时满脑子都被沉重的忧虑占据，根本无法感知身边的任何现实互动。哈里斯坦言，回顾那一刻，自己确实察觉到了丈夫的反常，但由于整个大屋挤满了家人和宾客，他们必须强撑着维持大局运转。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 选举之夜与败选后的心路历程
accDescr: 展示从道格获悉选情不利到夏威夷休整的过程
subgraph 选情之夜
A["道格获知福克斯作战室不利消息"] --> B["独自治理焦虑与祈祷"]
B --> C["心不在焉参与亲友晚宴<br/>（完全遗忘哈里斯祝酒）"]
end
subgraph 败选演说
D["选举结果明朗<br/>由胜选改为败选演说"] --> E["修改讲稿金句<br/>'战斗有时需要耗费更长时间'"]
E --> F["霍华德大学休息室：<br/>严正喝止悲伤'绝不办自怜派对'"]
end
subgraph 战后虚脱
G["戴上'应急氧气面罩'<br/>飞往夏威夷租住民宿"] --> H["如同僵尸般的休克状态"]
H --> I["金牌抑郁与'幻肢痛'<br/>难以接受无法再战的现实"]
end
C --> D
F --> G
```
---
### [01:37:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5824s) 霍华德大学的败选演说与“绝不办自怜派对”
原定于选举当晚在哈里斯的母校霍华德大学（Howard University）举行的胜选集会被迫延期，大家被通知次日再来。面对无法逆转的败局，哈里斯必须迅速收拾心情，准备发表一场艰难的败选演说。此前在竞选拉票的每一场集会中，她总是用一句极具感染力的口号作为收尾：“当我们战斗，我们就会胜利（When we fight, we win）。”如今面对失败，她深知这绝不是轻飘飘一句“胜败乃兵家常事”所能交代的，尤其是面对那些全心投入的年轻支持者，她必须给他们一个心理交代。在乘车前往霍华德大学发表讲稿的路上，她亲笔在演讲稿中添入了一句话：“有时，战斗需要耗费更长的时间（Sometimes the fight takes a while）。”
当哈里斯和家人抵达霍华德大学的贵宾休息室时，屋内的气氛已经彻底崩溃，所有亲友都在失声痛哭。哈里斯自嘲自己当时表现得近乎“无情”，她环顾四周泪流满面的亲人，当场严厉地喝止道：“我们绝不办自怜派对！我们绝不办自怜派对！（We are not having a pity party!）”她强行关停了个人情绪开关，将整个人切换到完全机械化的执行运转模式，以此对抗突如其来的崩塌与绝望。
---
### [01:38:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5900s) 夏威夷的避难、高压骤停与政治“幻肢痛”
演讲结束后，团队提议哈里斯夫妇前往夏威夷休整。几个月前他们曾自费预订了一栋夏威夷度假屋，后来因突发的国际危机而未能成行，团队成员细心地帮他们恢复了这趟行程。哈里斯回忆道，那根本不是一场轻松的度假，而更像是客机失压时应急氧气面罩突然脱落，他们本能地抓过来戴上以求保命。抵达夏威夷与朋友会合后，所有人整日都像行尸走肉般的“僵尸”，精神彻底陷入停滞与虚脱。
当被问及这种状态是否属于抑郁时，哈里斯认为确实存在这一成分。她分析指出，长期处于高强度、分秒必争的政治肉搏中，人体内的肾上腺素时刻处于峰值，始终维持在激烈的“战或逃”应激状态。而一旦选战终结，这种急速运转戛然而止，身体机能便会产生剧烈的反弹与失落，正如运动员在赢得奥运金牌后常出现的“金牌抑郁症”。更折磨人的是一种心理层面的“幻肢痛”（phantom limb）：就像截肢者依然能感到残肢的神经牵动一样，哈里斯在败选后的数天内，大脑始终无法接受竞选已经尘埃落定的事实，不断产生一种“我们一定还能再做点什么”的挣扎冲动，真切地在哀伤的各个阶段中反复煎熬。
---
### [01:40:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=6042s) 忆母亲希亚马拉：若她还在世，需全职劝她冷静
哈里斯谈及了在自己40岁出头时因结肠癌病逝的母亲希亚马拉（Shyamala）。母亲出生于12月7日，于刚过完70岁生日两个月后的2月11日离世。哈里斯坦言，母亲的精神与存在一直深刻地伴随着自己。最近她与几位同样失去至亲的朋友交谈，有人感叹幸亏父母走得早，否则看到当今国家混乱分裂的局面，非得被活活气死不可。哈里斯笑称，如果母亲今天还活着，自己恐怕得把所有精力用来安抚她，根本顾不上别的。
- 母亲极其护短且性格刚烈，在哈里斯早年竞选旧金山地区检察官（DA）时，哈里斯本打算将母亲纳入最核心的“安全港湾”顾问圈，结果很快发现这是个巨大的失误——因为听到外界的攻击，母亲气得恨不得去“干掉所有人”，导致哈里斯每天都得花大量时间劝母亲消气，反而无法专注于解决实际竞选问题。
- 在母亲病重住院期间，正值哈里斯竞选加州总检察长。哈里斯坐在病床边陪护，母亲虚弱地问起选情如何，哈里斯坦率告知：“妈，对手扬言要狠狠揍我一顿（they said they're going to kick my ass）。”母亲转过身看着她，脸上浮现出一抹充满斗志与傲然的微笑，仿佛在无声地说：“那就让他们尽管来试试看。”
- 哈里斯总结道，这就是人生的二元性（duality）：给你带来无尽温暖与力量的巨大眷顾，一旦逝去就会化为无比深沉的缺失之痛；但正如人们绝不会因为害怕失去挚爱的剧痛而选择从不去爱一样，生命中的奋斗与付出同样无怨无悔。
---
### [01:44:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=6272s) 压轴提问与终章寄语
在节目的尾声，主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出了节目的传统压轴环节：由上一位未具名的嘉宾为下一位访客留下的神秘提问。针对哈里斯的问题是：“如果在过去十年中有一个时刻可以重新选择，你会改变什么？为什么？”面对这个极具分量的问题，哈里斯会心一笑，幽默而利落地化解道：“这个问题贯穿了我们整场采访——去读我的书吧（Read my book）！”
主持人顺势向听众推荐了哈里斯的新书《107天》（107 Days: A Memoir of a Campaign That Made History）。他高度评价该书展现了极度罕见的诚实与人性温度，让公众得以窥见高层政治帷幕背后真实而生动的运转细节。主持人赞扬哈里斯在整个职业生涯中不断打破壁垒、冲破玻璃天花板，其服务公众的初心毋庸置疑。哈里斯对此表达了由衷的感动与感谢，对话在温情中圆满落幕。
## Notable quotes
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=0s) 有些时候，乔·拜登让我极为失望，坦白说，甚至让我感到愤怒。 — Kamala Harris
> [02:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=126s) 情况可能会在好转之前变得更糟。 — Kamala Harris
> [19:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1160s) 绝不要因为别人眼界的局限，而给自己的潜能设限。 — Kamala Harris
> [21:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=1305s) 绝不要让任何人定义你是谁，由你来告诉他们你是谁。 — Kamala Harris
> [35:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2114s) 我们荣辱与共（We rose and fell together）。 — Kamala Harris
> [48:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=2888s) 面对沉重与荒诞，必须学会捕捉其中的幽默感，否则整个人都会被压垮。 — Kamala Harris
> [52:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3169s) 定义一个品牌的往往不是实用性，而是看似无用的荒谬感。 — Steven Bartlett
> [01:04:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=3871s) 我确实很后悔当时没有去录（I regret that we didn't do it）。 — Kamala Harris
> [01:07:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4062s) 竞选总统绝不适合胆小脆弱的人（not for the faint of heart），你不仅要学会出拳，更必须扛得住挨揍。 — Kamala Harris
> [01:12:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=4322s) 地图上的数字显示，我们还需要20万张选票，但我们找不到了。 — 竞选经理
> [01:29:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5369s) 请不要让你们的精神被打败……那他们才算真正赢了。 — Kamala Harris
> [01:37:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5824s) 有时，战斗需要耗费更长的时间（Sometimes the fight takes a while）。 — Kamala Harris
> [01:37:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI&t=5824s) 我们绝不办自怜派对！我们绝不办自怜派对！（We are not having a pity party!） — Kamala Harris
## Mentioned
Kamala Harris, Steven Bartlett, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Doug Emhoff, Maya Harris, Frances Wilson, Philippe Reines, Tony West, Shyamala Gopalan, Elon Musk, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, LeBron James, Joe Rogan, Bret Baier, Tali Sharot, 107 Days: A Memoir of a Campaign That Made History, The Diary Of A CEO, The Joe Rogan Experience, Fox News, Fiverr Pro, Project 2025, Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, CHIPS Act, Howard University, Tesla
## Video description
Vice-President Kamala Harris breaks silence on the real cost of Trump winning, Biden’s shocking debate day call, why skipping Joe Rogan was a big mistake, election loss lessons, and…will she run again in 2028?
Kamala Harris made history as the first female Vice President of the United States and first Black woman and South Asian American in the role. Before becoming VP, Kamala led the largest state Justice Department in the U.S and became only the second Black woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. In September 2025, she released her bestselling book '107 Days: A Memoir of a Campaign That Made History'.
She explains:
◼️The moment she lost the 2024 election and went into shock
◼️Why Biden's team sabotaged her behind the scenes
◼️The real reason Biden didn't want to debate Trump
◼️The 200K votes they desperately needed but couldn't find
◼️How America is at breaking point and the destruction Trump is causing
00:00 Intro
02:22 How Are You Feeling?
03:36 Will It Get Worse Before It Gets Better?
06:44 We Spoke to Your Husband
07:42 Why Do You Want to Protect People?
08:43 Kamala’s Law Career
09:19 The Worst Thing You Faced in Your Career
11:06 Managing Stress and Responsibility
12:45 Kamala at 25 vs. Kamala Today
15:10 When Did You Decide to Run for President?
16:35 Does Impostor Syndrome Ever Go Away?
21:11 Experiencing Prejudice
25:37 How Do You Earn Respect as a Leader?
27:57 Why Kamala Dropped Out of the 2019 Race
30:47 The VP and Presidential Interview Process
33:53 Staff Suppressed My Accomplishments
37:36 Frustration Over Lack of Recognition
38:24 Kamala’s Relationship With Biden
45:13 Biden Was Talked Into the Debate
49:14 What It Was Like Debating Trump
54:26 Trump Targets the Weak
01:00:37 Ads
01:01:39 Podcasting Power & Not Going on Joe Rogan
01:07:09 What Would Make You Run for President Again?
01:09:41 Why It's Difficult to Run for President
01:12:03 Kamala Was in a State of Shock
01:17:18 What Democrats Must Do to Win Back the People
01:19:36 Is the Left Against Entrepreneurship?
01:24:04 Have You Changed Since the Election?
01:25:20 Ads
01:27:25 Kamala on Being More Unfiltered
01:29:39 No Regrets About Running
01:31:56 Support From My Partner
01:39:20 Did You Experience Depression?
01:40:42 The Passing of Kamala’s Mother
01:42:40 Would Your Mom Be Proud?
Follow Kamala:
Instagram - https://bit.ly/4of8PVL
Facebook - https://bit.ly/43zlMBg
X - https://bit.ly/47M5qaS
Threads - https://bit.ly/4qzUjJI
YouTube - https://bit.ly/3X6gR76
TikTok - https://bit.ly/4hufIja
You can purchase Kamala Harris’ new book, ‘107 Days’, here: https://amzn.to/3N4T3Pk
The Diary Of A CEO:
◼️Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/
◼️Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook
◼️The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt
◼️The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb
◼️Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt
◼️Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb
Get access to exclusive Diary of a CEO content: https://bit.ly/circle-ytshorts
Sponsors:
Fiverr - https://fiverr.com/diary and get 10% off your first order when you use code DIARY
Justworks - http://Justworks.com
Bon Charge - http://boncharge.com/diary?rfsn=8189247.228c0cb with code DIARY for 25% off
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhrrXb4WI)
Source quotes
[0:00] Kamala Harris: 有些时候，乔·拜登让我极为失望，坦白说，甚至让我感到愤怒。
[2:06] Kamala Harris: 情况可能会在好转之前变得更糟。
[19:20] Kamala Harris: 绝不要因为别人眼界的局限，而给自己的潜能设限。
[21:45] Kamala Harris: 绝不要让任何人定义你是谁，由你来告诉他们你是谁。
[35:14] Kamala Harris: 我们荣辱与共（We rose and fell together）。
[48:08] Kamala Harris: 面对沉重与荒诞，必须学会捕捉其中的幽默感，否则整个人都会被压垮。
[52:49] Steven Bartlett: 定义一个品牌的往往不是实用性，而是看似无用的荒谬感。
[64:31] Kamala Harris: 我确实很后悔当时没有去录（I regret that we didn't do it）。
[67:42] Kamala Harris: 竞选总统绝不适合胆小脆弱的人（not for the faint of heart），你不仅要学会出拳，更必须扛得住挨揍。
[72:02] 竞选经理: 地图上的数字显示，我们还需要20万张选票，但我们找不到了。
[89:29] Kamala Harris: 请不要让你们的精神被打败……那他们才算真正赢了。
[97:04] Kamala Harris: 有时，战斗需要耗费更长的时间（Sometimes the fight takes a while）。
[97:04] Kamala Harris: 我们绝不办自怜派对！我们绝不办自怜派对！（We are not having a pity party!）
Source quotes
[18:11] Kamala Harris: Don't ever limit yourself based on other people's limited ability to see who you are.
[21:11] Shyamala Gopalan: Don't you ever let anyone tell you who you are, you tell them who you are.
[49:14] Steven Bartlett: useless absurdity defines a brand more than useful practicality
[54:40] Kamala Harris: He's basically saying to the American people, you have less because of people who have even less than you.
[54:40] Kamala Harris: I think it's a big mistake for us to assume we're all working with the same information.
[61:39] Kamala Harris: I wanted to do Joe Rogan's show, and there was a lot of games being played... Pride is not associated with it. It is literally about return on investment.
[61:39] Kamala Harris: I regret that we didn't do it. I definitely regret that we didn't do it.
[67:09] Kamala Harris: I really don't want to be transactional right now... I don't want to be present because I'm asking for a vote.
[67:09] Kamala Harris: Among the difficult aspects is putting yourself out there in a way that you invariably will be in a position... where you will be misunderstood. That's an awful feeling.
[70:48] Campaign Manager: We need 200,000 more votes that we can't find.
[97:06] Kamala Harris: Sometimes the fight takes a while
[97:06] Kamala Harris: We are not having a pity party
[111:15] Steven Bartlett: If anyone takes the time to read your book or look through the story of your life, it is irrefutable that your agenda is to serve people.
Original transcript
[0:00] I'm going to just be honest. There were
[0:02] times where Joe Biden greatly
[0:04] disappointed me and frankly, you know,
[0:07] angered me. Like on the day of my debate
[0:09] with Trump, the stakes were so high. And
[0:12] the president calls and he said to me,
[0:16] it just was so unnecessary.
[0:19] >> And you took something from that
[0:20] >> that his motivation was all about
[0:22] himself.
[0:23] >> Do you think he wanted you to win the
[0:24] election?
[0:27] Madame Vice President, there's nothing
[0:28] you said I couldn't ask you.
[0:29] >> Cuz I have a lot to say. And so IT
[0:34] >> OKAY. SO, do you wish you hadn't ran?
[0:36] >> No. But I do regret that we did not have
[0:38] more time.
[0:38] >> And then the debate that came before
[0:39] with Biden and Trump, it was a car
[0:41] crash.
[0:42] >> I mean, this was clearly an individual
[0:44] that was very much struggling.
[0:45] >> He didn't want that debate. I could tell
[0:47] something was a little off.
[0:48] >> How do you know?
[0:49] >> Well, I could start with this.
[0:50] >> And what about not going on Joe Rogan's
[0:52] show? I definitely regret that we didn't
[0:54] do it, but there was a lot of games
[0:55] being played.
[0:56] >> And then on that night when the election
[0:58] hasn't gone your way, what would I have
[0:59] seen if I was a fly on the wall in the
[1:01] room?
[1:01] >> I was in a state of shock. Like I
[1:03] haven't felt anything similar to the
[1:04] emotion I felt that day other than the
[1:07] grief I felt when my mother died and I
[1:10] knew what was going to happen to our
[1:12] country. So I had a hard time
[1:14] reconciling that we can't still do
[1:16] something about it because I grew up in
[1:18] an environment where everyone was
[1:19] fighting for justice and for equality.
[1:21] So, I do think about how different it
[1:24] could have been, but sometimes the fight
[1:25] takes a while.
[1:26] >> Does that mean that you're going to run
[1:28] again?
[1:29] >> I
[1:35] I see messages all the time in the
[1:36] comments section that some of you didn't
[1:38] realize you didn't subscribe. So, if you
[1:40] could do me a favor and double check if
[1:41] you're a subscriber to this channel,
[1:43] that would be tremendously appreciated.
[1:44] It's the simple, it's the free thing
[1:46] that anybody that watches this show
[1:47] frequently can do to help us here to
[1:49] keep everything going in this show in
[1:51] the trajectory it's on. So, please do
[1:53] double check if you've subscribed and uh
[1:55] thank you so much because in a strange
[1:56] way you are you're part of our history
[1:58] and you're on this journey with us and I
[2:00] appreciate you for that. So, yeah, thank
[2:02] you.
[2:06] >> Madame Vice President,
[2:08] how are you doing?
[2:11] >> I am well. I am well. I mean all things
[2:13] considered I am well my family is good
[2:17] health so I start there but otherwise
[2:21] you know it's a it's a it's a troubling
[2:25] time
[2:26] >> what are the what are the full range of
[2:29] emotions when you said all things
[2:30] considered what are the full what's the
[2:31] full picture there
[2:33] >> everything from
[2:36] grateful and feeling very blessed
[2:39] to extremely ly
[2:43] troubled, disappointed,
[2:46] concerned
[2:48] of the state of our country and by
[2:52] extension the world. Like a lot of
[2:55] people who are watching the news and
[2:59] reading the news, there's a state of
[3:01] anxiety what will happen next. I often
[3:04] have found myself saying to people, it
[3:07] may get worse before it gets better. And
[3:09] so the knowledge of that perhaps the
[3:12] anticipation of that I think keeps me
[3:15] and many others on edge.
[3:17] >> Do you believe that? Do you believe it's
[3:18] it could get worse before it gets
[3:19] better?
[3:19] >> I think it's very possible. Every day I
[3:21] I because actually during the book tour
[3:23] I've I've said it to audiences and in
[3:26] one city and then the next day something
[3:27] happens.
[3:31] There's a lot that's very unpredictable
[3:32] about this administration. Although
[3:34] there is almost all of it that I did
[3:37] predict.
[3:38] Now, I know you you only had 107 days
[3:42] >> to potentially intervene in the course
[3:44] of history, but when you see these
[3:45] things playing out that you're referring
[3:46] to that incite those feelings you have
[3:49] of frustration,
[3:51] >> um a little bit of anxiety, etc.,
[3:53] >> do do you feel a sense of like
[3:55] responsibility in a weird way because
[3:58] because
[3:59] >> yeah,
[4:00] >> there was a percentage chance of sort of
[4:02] intervening in these things. This is a
[4:04] complex question to ask, but it's
[4:05] >> Mhm. I do think about how different it
[4:08] could have been.
[4:09] >> Mhm.
[4:10] >> I do think about it in the context of
[4:14] the number of people who are being
[4:16] impacted in such a horrible way. I think
[4:19] of it in terms of the number of people
[4:20] who are existing and living in utter
[4:22] fear right now, afraid of being attacked
[4:26] or afraid of being targeted with hate.
[4:32] um much less misinformation. I Yeah, I
[4:34] do. And I and I know that the the race
[4:36] that I ran for president of the United
[4:39] States, the outcome of that election is
[4:42] what has happened
[4:44] and it would have been different. It
[4:46] would have been very different. I try
[4:48] not to allow myself to think too much
[4:50] this way. I will tell you that because I
[4:53] for better and worse really
[4:56] do like to be centered on the present.
[5:00] So, so let's go. I want to understand
[5:02] the the set of circumstances that
[5:04] created someone like you because you're
[5:05] an anomaly. There's a lot of firsts that
[5:08] appear in your career, but if we if we
[5:10] start at the beginning, what is the
[5:12] context that shapes someone to become
[5:15] such an anomaly in their professional
[5:17] career?
[5:18] >> My parents and the community that raised
[5:21] me. My mother arrived from India in the
[5:23] United States at the age of 19 by
[5:26] herself.
[5:27] My mother naturally at that young age
[5:30] became aligned with the civil rights
[5:32] movement
[5:34] >> in in um Berkeley and Oakland,
[5:36] California. Met my father who had been a
[5:40] national scholar in Jamaica.
[5:43] They fell in love and here I am. My
[5:48] sister and I were born and we were born
[5:50] in an environment where everyone was
[5:51] fighting for justice and for freedom and
[5:54] for equality. every message we got was
[5:57] you are important and you have a duty to
[6:01] figure out how you're going to
[6:02] participate. I I noticed this as I was
[6:04] reading through your story, how service
[6:07] and helping others seems to be so
[6:11] interwoven into your DNA.
[6:13] >> And even we spoke to Doug
[6:15] >> Uhhuh.
[6:16] >> your husband and he was telling me a
[6:18] story about your first date with him.
[6:21] >> Uhhuh. What did he tell you? Well,
[6:23] apparently you made a you made a remark
[6:25] on that first date that you're you're
[6:26] here to help people and to serve people.
[6:28] He told me many things. We we have a I
[6:30] have many pages of what Duck said. Very
[6:32] fascinating. He's um he's very in love
[6:34] with you, by the way.
[6:35] >> I'm very in love with my husband and
[6:36] he's very funny. I hope you got a sense
[6:38] of
[6:38] >> He was hilarious guy.
[6:39] >> Yeah. Well, he he and I had such
[6:42] different careers, both of us being
[6:43] lawyers, right? He went immediately into
[6:46] private practice. I never wanted to be
[6:48] in private practice. It was never about
[6:51] money for me. was always about people
[6:53] and how
[6:55] could I do the work that was about
[6:57] protecting people and giving people
[7:00] dignity.
[7:00] >> Why protecting people?
[7:02] >> I I think there's a lot um that has to
[7:05] do also maybe with birth order.
[7:08] >> I'm the eldest.
[7:10] >> And from the age of 2 years old, my
[7:13] mother told me, "Take care of your
[7:15] sister. Look out for your sister."
[7:18] You've got all kinds of pictures. Canon,
[7:21] I've been through everything.
[7:21] >> Yeah. This is my sister Maya.
[7:23] >> That's you protecting her.
[7:24] >> And that's me protecting her. I grew up
[7:27] also, you know, seeing my mother who was
[7:32] a 5-ft tall brown woman with an accent
[7:35] would be treated. She taught me this, my
[7:37] extended family taught me. But then I
[7:39] also witnessed
[7:41] the importance of
[7:44] making sure that all people that their
[7:47] dignity is respected and protected. and
[7:50] I because I you know I I have lived a
[7:52] life to see where that doesn't always
[7:53] happen.
[7:54] >> So you decide to focus on law in public
[7:57] practice. Um you have a phenomenal
[8:00] career from that point onwards. It's
[8:03] really remarkable what you're able to
[8:04] accomplish and this is I guess where a
[8:06] lot of the firsts come in because from
[8:07] the age of 24 to 51 you rise from deputy
[8:10] district attorney to California's
[8:12] attorney general becoming the first
[8:14] woman and first black person to hold
[8:16] both roles. Um, and you led major
[8:19] reforms in that time, including securing
[8:21] $25 billion in homeowner relief after
[8:22] the 2008 crisis, launching the back on
[8:25] track LA rehabilitation program, and
[8:27] making California the state the first
[8:29] state to mandate body cameras for
[8:31] justice justice agents and much more.
[8:36] An incredible career up until that
[8:37] point. That could have been it. You
[8:40] could have bowed out at that point and
[8:42] celebrated.
[8:43] >> There's so much more to be done. There's
[8:45] so much more to be done. Um, I think one
[8:47] of my strengths and weaknesses is um, I
[8:53] like to solve problems, but that means
[8:55] that I tend to
[8:58] once a problem has been addressed, move
[9:00] on to the next one without maybe taking
[9:03] the time to pat myself on the back
[9:05] >> because now it's time to move on to the
[9:07] next issue.
[9:08] >> During your career, you you saw some
[9:10] horrific things. That's the nature of
[9:12] your job. You deal with the dark darkest
[9:15] parts of reality.
[9:16] >> Parts of human behavior and nature I've
[9:18] seen. Yeah, you're right.
[9:19] >> Give me give me some context there. What
[9:20] does that mean in reality?
[9:22] >> Well, for a while I specialized in child
[9:25] sexual assault, which is about um
[9:31] the most horrendous of
[9:34] abuse and crime, which is an adult
[9:38] abusing a child.
[9:40] And
[9:42] those cases were so difficult um for so
[9:46] many reasons. I mean, there's a couple
[9:49] that I remember in particular where I
[9:51] just
[9:52] where the children were so young that
[9:55] they were um they wouldn't be able to
[9:59] testify.
[10:01] One was an elementary school little
[10:04] girl. And I mean, I I remember going
[10:10] into the bathroom of the courthouse and
[10:13] crying
[10:15] because I knew a jury
[10:19] would not
[10:21] have enough to convict
[10:25] and um
[10:28] you know, broke my heart. I mean, and I
[10:30] I have thought about that little girl,
[10:33] you know, not years and years and years
[10:35] later. But those cases, you know, it's
[10:38] the worst of human behavior, which is we
[10:41] as a society should be in the business
[10:42] of protecting children and protecting
[10:45] their vulnerability so that they can
[10:47] thrive. Um, but I've, you know, I've
[10:49] prosecuted homicide cases. I've, um, you
[10:53] know, I've prosecuted fraud cases. How
[10:56] does how does one deal with all of this
[10:59] stress and responsibility? And I'm not
[11:02] just referring to your time as attorney
[11:03] general, but even thereafter with
[11:05] >> running for president and the ups and
[11:08] downs of that, the public feedback, the
[11:10] the pressure, the responsibility of
[11:13] potentially running the, you know, the
[11:16] the free world basically and becoming
[11:18] the most powerful person on earth and
[11:20] the ups, the downs, the attacks, the
[11:22] >> the the child abuses. How does one
[11:26] learn? Is there a framework you've
[11:28] built? Is there are there ideas or
[11:29] principles that you've developed to deal
[11:31] with such pressure?
[11:33] >> Well, this may sound trit, but I work
[11:36] out every day.
[11:37] >> Yeah.
[11:38] >> I work out every morning, no matter how
[11:41] little sleep I've had. Um, I just find
[11:44] it to be just mind, body, and soul.
[11:47] >> Have you changed over time?
[11:50] >> Oh, for sure I've changed over time. The
[11:52] pressure has changed in magnitude.
[11:57] >> Um but the pressure that I feel in terms
[12:00] of my sense of personal responsibility
[12:04] >> has not changed. I I put a lot of
[12:08] I I I hold myself to a very high
[12:10] standard and um I tend to be a
[12:14] perfectionist even though I am far from
[12:17] perfect you know I mean even during the
[12:20] 107 days every night I would stay awake
[12:25] thinking what more could I have done
[12:26] with that one day
[12:28] >> 24year-old Kamala Harris who starts as
[12:32] that sort of uh becomes eventually
[12:34] becomes the deputy district attorney. If
[12:36] I sat her there
[12:37] >> Uhhuh.
[12:38] >> and you're sat there now as um madame
[12:41] vice president, what would be the
[12:43] notable differences in personality,
[12:46] mentality,
[12:48] in perspective?
[12:48] >> Oh, that's interesting.
[12:52] Well, I mean, I I don't know if that's
[12:54] changed, but she was fearless.
[12:59] >> She was fearless.
[13:00] >> She was fearless. She didn't hear no, it
[13:03] can't be done.
[13:06] and whether it was the first case that I
[13:10] had and I was a young prosecutor and I
[13:15] was going through the files and it was a
[13:17] Friday evening and I realized that the
[13:21] person who had been arrested had young
[13:23] children at home, a woman and all the
[13:27] courts were shutting down and I went to
[13:29] the courtroom and I asked the judge,
[13:32] "Please take the bench again. She has
[13:34] young children. She can't stay in over
[13:36] the weekend.
[13:38] And the clerk was like, "Nope, he's gone
[13:41] for the day. He's leaving for the day."
[13:43] And I would not leave. And they call the
[13:46] case, you know, but not hearing no. I
[13:50] just I um that has been probably a
[13:52] throughine of my my life. I don't rest
[13:56] easy with the idea that something is not
[13:58] possible.
[14:00] um at least I don't rest easy with it
[14:03] without trying
[14:05] >> to show that it is possible and that's
[14:07] probably not changed. I also have
[14:11] started to sit better with the idea that
[14:14] but you can't change everyone.
[14:16] >> Mhm.
[14:17] >> How does that change your approach
[14:19] knowing that you can't change everybody?
[14:21] I'm better able to assess
[14:26] a situation
[14:28] to figure out what is the potential
[14:30] there.
[14:31] >> Okay. Yeah.
[14:32] >> And be perhaps a bit more realistic
[14:34] without being I think jaded about it.
[14:39] >> Yeah.
[14:40] >> And I guess that's wisdom and
[14:41] experiences.
[14:42] >> Yeah. It comes with it comes with I
[14:43] think a bit of experience
[14:45] >> which allows you to be more efficient
[14:47] and effective.
[14:47] >> And that's right. Yeah.
[14:48] >> That's exactly right. That's exactly
[14:50] right because that is how I reconcile it
[14:53] which is
[14:54] >> the effort is better placed
[14:56] >> somewhere else.
[14:58] >> Yeah.
[14:58] >> Yeah.
[14:59] >> And at what point in this in this
[15:00] journey did you realize that you wanted
[15:02] to be president of the United States?
[15:06] Like was was there a a lunch or a dinner
[15:08] you had with Doug? When does that
[15:10] decision get made in your career?
[15:14] >> It was when I was in the Senate.
[15:16] >> Yeah. I ran into a friend who came up,
[15:20] Doug and I were at a basically a a
[15:22] family table in a local restaurant
[15:24] eating and he said to me, "You should
[15:27] run for president." And it had not
[15:29] occurred to me until then. It had not
[15:31] occurred to me to run for president. I
[15:33] There are people who are born thinking
[15:34] they're going to be president. There are
[15:35] people who look who look in the mirror
[15:37] every day and see a president. I was not
[15:40] one of those people. But then the
[15:42] thought
[15:44] it kind of germinated and then of course
[15:46] being vice president and doing the work
[15:49] of vice president of the United States I
[15:51] met with over 150 world leaders,
[15:54] presidents, prime ministers, chancellors
[15:56] and kings. I've negotiated very
[15:58] important
[16:00] deals and and and issues on behalf of
[16:03] the American people. Um I've spent
[16:05] countless hours not only in the Oval
[16:07] Office but the situation room and
[16:09] traveling around the world. And so in
[16:11] those 107 days, I was fully aware of not
[16:15] only the importance of the job, but
[16:18] fully aware that I had the experience
[16:21] and knowledge to be able to do it
[16:23] effectively.
[16:24] >> I mean, this is one of the things I was
[16:25] actually talking to a friend of mine
[16:26] downstairs, Lucy Mangini, who sat out
[16:27] there, and we were talking about this
[16:30] idea of like, does imposter syndrome
[16:32] ever leave you? And I imposter syndrome
[16:33] is a bit of a loaded term,
[16:35] >> but you kind of assume that people in
[16:38] higher places than you are have some
[16:40] like genetic or mental or some gift.
[16:43] They have all the answers. But higher
[16:44] you climb with your own continued
[16:46] naivity, you start to suspect that no
[16:48] one really
[16:49] >> is genetically gifted or like has some
[16:52] superpower that you don't have.
[16:54] >> Right. And I'm wondering if you've
[16:55] experienced that in your career where
[16:57] the higher you've climbed, you've
[16:58] realized that actually everybody up here
[16:59] is like I'm like that like or I'm at
[17:01] least on their level. Have you had that
[17:03] experience in your career?
[17:04] >> Yes, I have. And but I've also had the
[17:06] imposttor syndrome experience and that
[17:08] was when I was first elected DA
[17:12] >> and I challenged then in the incumbent.
[17:15] Um I started out at six points in the
[17:17] polls which is six out of 100.
[17:19] >> Uh you know people recently asked me how
[17:21] about polls polls. Well, you know, if I
[17:23] listened to polls, I would have never
[17:24] run for my first office and therefore we
[17:25] wouldn't be having this interview
[17:26] probably. And I won. And it was, you
[17:30] know, it was not expected that I would,
[17:32] at least when I jumped in the race. And
[17:34] there I was sitting in the office and I
[17:36] thought, "Oh my god, I'm I'm now the
[17:39] elected DA of a major city in the United
[17:41] States." In hindsight, it was maybe it's
[17:45] we call it imposttor syndrome. to your
[17:47] point maybe it is a very loaded term
[17:48] because I think there is nothing wrong
[17:50] with having um and I think that there's
[17:53] a lot that is good with having a certain
[17:54] level of humility
[17:57] >> and in particular when the people have
[18:00] vested you with great power
[18:03] >> right to understand it's not about you
[18:06] right I think that that is that is part
[18:08] and parcel of what we call imposttor
[18:11] syndrome or who has it I think often it
[18:14] is because they understand how serious
[18:17] The job is on behalf of others.
[18:20] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[18:21] >> And I applaud a bit of humility, honest
[18:24] humility, not feain humility.
[18:26] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[18:27] >> Right. Cuz there are plenty of people
[18:29] that are, you know, self-deprecating for
[18:31] the sake of the shtick of it all.
[18:33] >> Yeah.
[18:34] >> But yes, to your point, the higher you
[18:36] go,
[18:37] >> it does. It does because the more you're
[18:41] exposed to to being the more you're in
[18:43] the rooms with the people who are who
[18:45] otherwise feel untouchable,
[18:48] >> the more you understand that they are
[18:50] not untouchable.
[18:53] >> It's a polite way of putting it,
[18:56] >> the more you understand everyone's got a
[18:58] little dust on them.
[18:59] >> Yeah.
[18:59] >> And they're not not everyone's shiny.
[19:02] >> But it's liberating to know that that
[19:04] that's the case because you know there's
[19:06] we all put a ceiling above us. and we
[19:08] think that's my level and everyone above
[19:10] that has some gift that I will never be
[19:12] able to attain. So I won't even strive
[19:14] to break that ceiling because you know I
[19:16] don't deserve to be up there.
[19:19] >> But but and also don't discount the
[19:21] signals that that many people are sent
[19:25] that you don't belong there.
[19:28] >> Yeah.
[19:29] >> Yeah. And and you know, I I especially
[19:32] when I'm mentoring people will often say
[19:34] to them, don't ever limit yourself
[19:40] based on other people's limited ability
[19:42] to see who you are.
[19:44] >> Mhm.
[19:46] >> That's their limitations to see who you
[19:48] are in your capacity. Don't impose those
[19:51] limitations on yourself.
[19:52] >> Well, I mean, this that photo I showed
[19:54] you before we started recording that
[19:55] LeBron posted is a pretty iconic
[19:58] example. I'll put it on the screen, but
[20:00] it just goes to show I think all the
[20:01] vice presidents that came before you,
[20:04] and frankly, they all look the same.
[20:06] >> So,
[20:09] one might fall into the trap of thinking
[20:12] that if I don't look like this, then I
[20:14] can't do this job. You know, that's what
[20:17] I think the human mind logically might
[20:19] arrive at that conclusion. It looks for
[20:20] pattern recognition. It might think if
[20:22] I'm not one of these here, one of these
[20:24] men here with this suit on and this kind
[20:26] of hair and this age, then that's not a
[20:29] position I can thrive in.
[20:31] >> I'll
[20:32] see you and add one.
[20:35] >> Okay.
[20:37] >> And everyone else thinks that this is
[20:39] the image of who can do the job.
[20:41] >> Yeah.
[20:43] So the added challenge is not only the
[20:47] limitations one puts on themselves
[20:51] but the limitations one might be met
[20:53] with around other people's perceptions
[20:56] about who can do what.
[20:57] >> And have you had that through your
[20:58] career?
[20:59] >> Yes. Is there any particular examples
[21:01] that always sit at the front of your
[21:03] mind where you really really felt that
[21:05] the room you were in, people were
[21:07] discounting you purely based on
[21:09] appearance or gender or race or anything
[21:12] like that?
[21:15] >> I mean, there are times in my career
[21:17] when I walked in the room and someone
[21:19] said, you know, something along if they
[21:20] didn't know me.
[21:21] >> Mhm.
[21:22] >> If they didn't know what they were
[21:23] walking into, you know, they were
[21:25] waiting for my boss.
[21:28] And how did you deal with that? How do
[21:30] you stop that suppressing you? Because
[21:32] it's very easy to feel that and go and
[21:34] to shrink.
[21:36] >> You will often be, you may often be the
[21:38] only one who walks into a boardroom, a
[21:42] courtroom, a meeting room,
[21:45] who looks like yourself or has had your
[21:48] life experiences.
[21:50] But when you walk in that room, walk in
[21:52] that room, chin up, shoulders back,
[21:55] knowing there are so many people who are
[21:57] not in that room,
[21:59] >> who are so proud of you walking in that
[22:02] room and expect that you will use the
[22:05] voice that you carry.
[22:07] >> Mhm. you know, and and there are there
[22:10] are tools that one has to employ when
[22:15] you otherwise are aware that you might
[22:19] be presenting the unfamiliar.
[22:22] >> But but but what I also would caution is
[22:24] is don't walk in that room with the
[22:27] assumption that your value will not be
[22:31] recognized. Right? And so again, this
[22:33] gets back to my point about we all have
[22:36] to moderate what limitations are we
[22:39] putting on ourselves
[22:41] with what limitations are being sent our
[22:44] way.
[22:44] >> And when you say tools,
[22:46] >> well, just like that, don't don't when
[22:48] you walk into that room, see all the
[22:51] people. I think sometimes of Mrs.
[22:54] Francis Wilson, who was my first grade
[22:56] teacher who attended my law school
[22:58] graduation.
[23:00] I think of my mother who would say to me
[23:03] calmly don't you ever let anyone tell
[23:05] you who you are you tell them who you
[23:07] are right and you think of these people
[23:10] when you walk into these important rooms
[23:12] to remind you
[23:13] >> I I it's a tool I have used over a
[23:15] period of time and um and it has served
[23:20] me well yes there's Mrs. Wilson. That's
[23:23] at my law school graduation. And that's
[23:24] my mother. That's exactly right. How
[23:27] about that? Yeah. Where'd you get all
[23:29] these pictures?
[23:30] >> Well, stopping you, you know.
[23:32] >> Yeah. That's Mrs. Wilson.
[23:34] >> And so, why is thinking of Mrs. Wilson
[23:36] helping you when you walk into those
[23:37] rooms?
[23:39] Because
[23:41] there is, I think, a key to success
[23:46] that each of us who has achieved success
[23:48] probably shares, which is there has been
[23:52] someone at least, and it could be a
[23:54] parent, it could be a teacher, it could
[23:55] be a neighbor, it could be a pastor,
[23:58] someone who convinced you you were
[24:00] special.
[24:02] You may not have been particularly
[24:03] special, but they told you you were and
[24:06] you believed them.
[24:08] I know that's true for me. I may not
[24:10] have been particularly special, but I
[24:13] had a few people who told me I was and I
[24:14] believed them.
[24:16] >> Mhm.
[24:17] >> And and but with that came
[24:20] therefore don't do this thing.
[24:23] >> Mhm.
[24:23] >> Cuz you're you know you shouldn't be
[24:25] doing that thing but go in that room. I
[24:28] think uh you know when we talk about
[24:33] mentorship, when we think about the
[24:35] signals that we as a society send to
[24:39] children and I mean all of our children,
[24:41] our own children, the children of a
[24:43] community which we should think of as
[24:44] our children.
[24:46] to send them signals that tell them they
[24:49] are special and then back that up with
[24:52] giving them the resources
[24:56] would make us a much stronger society.
[24:59] as you said that I was reflecting on
[25:01] little passing comments people in my
[25:02] life made at certain points that at the
[25:05] time I was suspicious about like you
[25:09] know them telling you that you're going
[25:10] to be special or do something great one
[25:11] day that I might have not fully believed
[25:13] myself but I believe they believed it
[25:15] >> right
[25:16] >> and that was enough
[25:17] >> but that's that's what I'm saying they
[25:19] told me and I believed them I didn't
[25:21] think of it and maybe that's why I don't
[25:22] look in the mirror and see all these
[25:24] things
[25:25] but yes
[25:26] >> have you got any tools around how you've
[25:29] leared to hold yourself.
[25:31] >> Thinking back to 24y old comma versus
[25:33] this Kamla, is there a certain way you
[25:35] hold yourself in those rooms that also
[25:37] garners that respect? I noticed when you
[25:39] speak, you you don't rush and I think
[25:43] people that are younger in their career,
[25:44] they tend to
[25:45] >> Yeah. Right.
[25:46] >> Because they're they're kind of almost
[25:47] trying to excuse the amount of time
[25:49] they're taking and they kind of are a
[25:50] bit more
[25:51] >> I just wondering if there's anything
[25:52] you've any tools in that regard that
[25:54] have helped.
[25:57] It's important to have some sense of
[26:00] conceptually
[26:03] >> what you mean to say and you not that
[26:07] you have to rehearse what you're going
[26:08] to speak before you speak it but do have
[26:12] a sense of what you intend to
[26:14] communicate.
[26:15] >> Mhm. And I think it's also important to
[26:19] especially with complex issues in the
[26:22] context of a discussion
[26:25] deconstruct
[26:27] in your mind what the issue is
[26:30] >> so you can speak logically.
[26:32] >> Mhm.
[26:33] >> And what about appearance generally? Do
[26:35] you think much about that? So do you
[26:36] think much about because you're I mean
[26:37] you look very your outfit's stunning
[26:39] today.
[26:40] >> You're very
[26:40] >> Does it matter?
[26:42] >> Sadly it does.
[26:42] >> It does. I mean depending on context. Um
[26:48] sadly it does. I I we are still I think
[26:52] in a world where the way you appear when
[26:56] you walk in the room
[26:58] impacts first impressions.
[27:00] >> Mhm.
[27:01] um including just for example again even
[27:04] in mentoring people people will look at
[27:06] their watch or their phone to see if
[27:09] you've walked in the room on time
[27:12] >> and will judge something about your
[27:14] character
[27:16] >> that the piece of how you look that is
[27:19] going to suggest the pride that one has
[27:22] in themselves
[27:24] >> as a matter of self-respect I mean I've
[27:27] always this is you know I grew up in the
[27:29] black church,
[27:31] you dress up
[27:33] >> and it's a it's a reflection of your
[27:36] dignity
[27:37] and the respect you have for the place
[27:40] that you may be.
[27:43] >> And in January 2019, you launched your
[27:45] presidential campaign for the first
[27:46] time, which was up until you you dropped
[27:50] out later that year in December.
[27:52] >> Correct.
[27:53] >> Why did you drop out of that uh
[27:55] presidential race? What's the what's the
[27:57] full context behind the scenes? There
[27:59] was a lot there. Um,
[28:02] mostly we ran out of money.
[28:04] >> Yeah.
[28:05] >> But I learned a lot of lessons obviously
[28:07] about running. Um, but that was that was
[28:10] the main reason.
[28:11] >> And at some point you get a call from
[28:14] Mr. President.
[28:15] >> Mhm. I got a call from then nominee,
[28:19] Democratic nominee Joe Biden. He um we
[28:22] facetimed it was during the height of
[28:24] COVID.
[28:24] >> Yeah.
[28:25] >> And he asked me to be his running mate.
[28:28] and it was a a great honor and I was
[28:31] honored to do it.
[28:32] >> Did you have any inclination before that
[28:33] moment that he was going to ask you?
[28:36] >> Had there been like a side conversation?
[28:37] >> So, no. I had an interview. I had an
[28:40] interview and it was like something out
[28:42] of a spy movie where I had my assistant
[28:46] drove me to one location. This was in
[28:49] DC. And then it was a mall. And then I
[28:52] got out of that car to get in another
[28:54] car that was because the press were
[28:58] watching everything to see who there was
[29:00] a short list that was out who was going
[29:02] to be. So we had to do this whole
[29:03] clandestine thing. And then I got into
[29:06] another car being driven by one of his
[29:08] assistants and then we went to this, you
[29:11] know, this very circuitous route to a
[29:13] house and then through the back door.
[29:16] The windows were closed, the shades were
[29:18] closed and I had my interview. went back
[29:21] to because Doug and I were in our
[29:23] apartment in DC because I was senator at
[29:25] the time and again height of COVID then
[29:28] the vans the press vans were parked out
[29:31] front and we would just want to go for a
[29:33] walk. Remember during co everyone just
[29:35] wanted to get some fresh air they must
[29:37] have thought we couldn't see them. They
[29:39] were like in unmarked vans. So from time
[29:42] to time I just walked up to him and say
[29:44] we're going to get some coffee. Can I
[29:46] bring you anything back? We'll be right
[29:47] back. I the day I actually got the call
[29:52] from from Joe Biden asking me to run
[29:55] with him was the same day earlier where
[29:59] one of my girlfriends has a house in
[30:01] Virginia and it was the end of summer
[30:02] and she had all these beautiful end of
[30:04] summer tomatoes.
[30:05] >> I like to cook. She brought me this big
[30:07] box of tomatoes and I was going to make
[30:09] a bunch of marinara
[30:11] >> and freeze it. Then I get the call from
[30:13] him. I said yes, of course. And I don't
[30:16] know, it felt like within seconds
[30:19] a parade of people walk into our
[30:20] apartment with a parade of binders sit
[30:23] down. Everyone's in masks to tell us,
[30:26] "Okay, this is what the campaign is
[30:27] going to be." And because I hate to
[30:30] waste food, every one of them walked out
[30:32] with me handing them to as they left.
[30:36] >> I'm so intrigued to know. I've done many
[30:39] interviews in my life. I've been in a
[30:40] couple of interviews myself. How does
[30:42] someone get interviewed to be the vice
[30:44] president? like what are the questions
[30:45] one is asked?
[30:46] >> Well, having been in the position of
[30:49] both being the interviewer and the
[30:51] interviewee,
[30:52] >> yeah,
[30:53] >> um it really as much as anything comes
[30:56] down to chemistry.
[30:59] >> Oh, okay.
[31:00] >> Because by the time that that interview
[31:03] is happening, it's usually narrowed down
[31:05] to about three people.
[31:07] So, all the vetting has been done. I
[31:09] mean, my the vetting I had such a
[31:11] truncated experience when I was running
[31:13] for president of of just a couple of
[31:15] weeks, but I think Joe Biden took like
[31:18] nine weeks to make a decision. And so
[31:20] there's vetting when I was being vetted
[31:23] for vice president. I had a I don't know
[31:25] 9-hour interview with a lawyer going
[31:28] through everything, everything. My
[31:32] taxes, my professional record,
[31:34] everything that was everything,
[31:35] everything. I mean, talk about a
[31:38] colonoscopy.
[31:42] >> It was just virtually. That's kind of
[31:45] what it was. And so when all of that has
[31:48] been done and it's kind of green light,
[31:49] green light through that, then it's
[31:52] about sitting down and just deciding um
[31:55] because it it is going to be a
[31:57] partnership, right? And it has to be it
[32:00] has to be where you feel that you can
[32:02] trust someone. You you could work with
[32:04] them. You are you're doing it for the
[32:06] same reasons.
[32:07] >> Was it what you thought it was going to
[32:09] be
[32:09] >> being vice president?
[32:11] >> Yeah.
[32:12] >> I didn't know exactly what it would be
[32:15] because there's nothing that can compare
[32:17] to it. I mean, I was the 49th vice
[32:19] president of the United States. There
[32:20] have only been 48 before me. Right.
[32:22] >> Mhm. And I don't think anything can
[32:25] truly prepare you for what it is because
[32:29] it is um a very unique position where
[32:33] you are
[32:35] again you are number two in command.
[32:38] >> Wow. you. So the the seriousness of the
[32:42] responsibility is is that um I I give
[32:47] all credit to now the late President
[32:49] Jimmy Carter who decided when he was
[32:53] president having come off of you Kennedy
[32:55] and Nixon and everything. He decided
[32:57] that the vice president should be given
[33:00] greater responsibilities than had been
[33:02] the case because God forbid something
[33:04] happens to the president. There should
[33:05] be a smooth succession. And so Walter
[33:09] Montdale was his vice president and was
[33:11] the first to have an office in the West
[33:13] Wing.
[33:14] >> Mhm.
[33:14] >> The responsibilities were again to meet
[33:17] with world leaders. The responsibilities
[33:19] were to travel the country um on behalf
[33:21] of our administration and our policies.
[33:25] Um it's it's an incredible
[33:27] responsibility and um you know meeting
[33:31] with the variety of people who for the
[33:35] most part just want us to achieve good
[33:40] things. When I was reading your book 107
[33:44] days, one of the one of the really
[33:45] surprising things was but also makes
[33:48] sense when I understand human nature was
[33:50] that you talk about how some of the
[33:52] president's staff were basically
[33:54] suppressing you a little bit,
[33:55] suppressing your accomplishments because
[33:57] you're a threat to them and you I think
[33:59] you were told pretty early on or you had
[34:01] heard pretty early on from a chief of
[34:02] staff that
[34:04] >> the the vice president is kind of seen
[34:06] as a threat to the president. So, the
[34:08] lore has it that
[34:11] the outgoing chief of staff to the
[34:13] president will tell the incoming chief
[34:16] of staff to the incoming president
[34:18] regardless of political party. Rule
[34:21] number one, watch the vice president.
[34:24] Lore has it that that's the case. And um
[34:27] and then I had of course run against Joe
[34:30] Biden. I was very and acutely aware that
[34:34] I would have to
[34:37] over and over again prove my loyalty
[34:39] that it wouldn't be assumed.
[34:42] >> You say in the book the president staff
[34:44] was adding fuel to negative narratives
[34:45] that sprung up about me.
[34:47] >> Yeah.
[34:47] >> The president's inner circle seemed fine
[34:49] with it. Indeed, it seemed as if they
[34:51] decided I should be knocked down a
[34:53] little bit more.
[34:54] >> Yeah. I was shocked when I read that but
[34:56] at the same time understood it
[34:59] >> because it's human nature but also
[35:01] shocked
[35:02] because one wouldn't expect
[35:05] >> it was and it was counterproductive
[35:07] was absolutely counterproductive. Was
[35:09] there a particular moment where you
[35:10] realized that this was happening
[35:12] for the first time?
[35:14] >> To be candid with you, I
[35:17] had a sense of it for quite some time,
[35:19] but it was after the election that I
[35:21] really started to hear the stories about
[35:23] it. I mean, I I had a sense of it. It
[35:26] was clear to me in terms of just the
[35:28] challenges with getting them to uplift,
[35:31] getting them to defend, especially when
[35:34] there were inaccurate, unfair attacks.
[35:37] And then I started to hear more stories
[35:39] after.
[35:40] >> And what you mean by that is when there
[35:41] were unfair media attacks on you that
[35:43] could quite easily have been rebuttled
[35:46] or
[35:46] >> debunked, there was no desire to debunk
[35:49] them.
[35:50] >> There was there the staff and the
[35:54] resources under the president as
[35:56] compared to the vice president are
[35:58] enormous. Mhm.
[36:00] >> And to the extent that the vice
[36:02] president is being attacked, resources
[36:05] were available but not used to
[36:09] defend the vice president in the way
[36:12] that they could have that would have
[36:14] inured to the benefit of everyone
[36:15] involved.
[36:16] >> Cuz that's what I think. There was an
[36:17] argument to say it was in their
[36:19] interests because if the if if you and
[36:22] Joe Biden are strong, you're more like
[36:25] Joe Biden's more likely to then win the
[36:27] next election. Exactly. That's my point.
[36:30] We rose and fell together.
[36:32] >> Yeah.
[36:34] And did did he did Joe Biden know that
[36:37] that was happening?
[36:38] >> I don't know if he did,
[36:39] >> but it's the staff underneath him that
[36:41] are in charge of that.
[36:42] >> Yeah.
[36:43] >> Okay. So, they would they So, you're
[36:44] saying that that you think they they
[36:46] wanted you to be weaker in public
[36:48] perception because that kind of keeps
[36:50] you in your place?
[36:52] >> I
[36:54] think that that was part of it. I do. I
[36:57] think that they decided that, you know,
[36:59] there are far too many people in this
[37:01] world and in professional life
[37:04] who approach things with a zero- sum
[37:06] game.
[37:07] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[37:08] >> If I have more, you have less.
[37:11] And it is incredibly shortsighted. And I
[37:15] think it's actually quite provincial
[37:17] thinking when you're talking about the
[37:19] stakes that were at play
[37:22] >> in our administration and of course in
[37:24] the election
[37:25] >> and they you were talking about in the
[37:27] book as well in on page 47 of 107 days
[37:30] that they also didn't
[37:33] promote your accomplishments because
[37:35] when I read through all the research of
[37:37] the things that you had accomplished I
[37:40] wasn't aware
[37:41] >> I know
[37:41] >> there doesn't seem to be a megaphone
[37:44] shouting about the things you
[37:45] accomplished. So, um it
[37:47] >> was very frustrating. I can't even tell
[37:49] you. Frustrating and painful
[37:52] >> really.
[37:52] >> And well, and also not just for me, but
[37:55] for the people who knew my career and
[37:58] knew what was not being said and what
[37:59] was being said.
[38:00] >> What wasn't being said,
[38:03] >> the accomplishments, the um the the the
[38:08] credibility of um of my leadership.
[38:13] They thought that, and you say this on
[38:14] page 51, if you were shining, then Joe
[38:17] Biden was dimmed. So, it was very much
[38:21] in their interests to
[38:24] make sure you were dimmed.
[38:26] One one could argue then so that Joe
[38:28] Biden was shining.
[38:29] >> Yeah. And that was um
[38:33] again, it was very shortsighted.
[38:35] >> Are you friends with Joe Biden?
[38:37] >> Yes.
[38:38] >> Is the relationship good?
[38:39] >> It's a good relationship. I just talked
[38:41] to him.
[38:42] two days ago he called me for my
[38:44] birthday.
[38:46] >> Is it Is it complicated?
[38:49] >> Yes, it's very complicated.
[38:51] >> It is. And as I write in the book, I um
[38:55] it is very complicated. I have a great
[38:57] deal of affection for him. Um, and
[39:02] there were times that I've been quite
[39:04] candid about where he
[39:06] greatly disappointed me
[39:09] and frankly, you know, angered me.
[39:13] >> Yeah.
[39:16] >> Can you give me context on it where he
[39:18] disappointed and angered you?
[39:22] >> So, I write um and I, you know, I I I
[39:27] thought about this. Was I going to write
[39:28] about it or not? And I I decided in
[39:31] writing this book, I was going to just
[39:32] be honest and these are the facts and
[39:34] the reader can take what they want from
[39:36] it. on the day of the debate, my debate
[39:39] with Trump.
[39:42] And you know, so going into a
[39:45] presidential debate is an incredibly
[39:49] intense and intensive project, including
[39:53] what has historically happened that we
[39:55] even called debate camp.
[39:58] >> Can you imagine? And it's no camp at
[39:59] all. It's going into
[40:02] um where you basically are sequestered
[40:04] for a period of time immediately before
[40:06] the debate.
[40:09] Where did you get all of these? This is
[40:11] Phipe who played Donald Trump
[40:14] >> in your debate camp.
[40:15] >> In my debate camp and he never broke
[40:17] character ever.
[40:18] >> So this is a fake Trump that was brought
[40:20] in.
[40:20] >> This is the fake Trump. He would do the
[40:22] makeup, the orange makeup, the long red
[40:24] tie. He was just awful.
[40:28] Awful. awful in the best way in trying
[40:32] to get me prepared and um and there were
[40:35] a lot of people like Phipe there were a
[40:37] lot of people who are you know I I'm
[40:40] very fortunate I have people who have
[40:42] been with me for years and years and
[40:44] years through these various offices and
[40:47] you know even if they go on to different
[40:49] positions they always come back when
[40:51] needed and so debate camp was this
[40:54] intense basically a preparation process
[40:58] where you
[41:01] you know your team will basically try to
[41:04] they'll break you and then build you
[41:06] back up. So the day of the debate was
[41:10] after that intense period of preparation
[41:13] and then that morning I had a meeting
[41:16] with my team. I thought it was going to
[41:18] be more prep but they actually were
[41:20] wonderful and just basically said to me
[41:22] you're ready.
[41:24] So, okay then being a woman running for
[41:26] president and many women in various high
[41:29] level positions get their hair and
[41:31] makeup done. Back to your point about
[41:33] presentation and it can take hours.
[41:37] >> Hair and makeup got done. I'm in the
[41:40] hotel room with Doug, with my husband,
[41:43] and the president calls and I they I was
[41:47] told that he wanted to call me so that
[41:48] I'd be ready. And I was so sure it was
[41:51] to buck me up and go go get him.
[41:56] And he did say that for the first beat.
[42:00] And then he went on to talk about a
[42:03] group of people in Pennsylvania who were
[42:06] saying bad things about me.
[42:09] because they heard I was saying bad
[42:10] things about him. And when I hung up the
[42:14] phone, I was just
[42:16] I was it was unbelievable. And I was
[42:20] Yes, I was angry and deeply
[42:22] disappointed.
[42:25] It just it was so unnecessary. There
[42:27] only two people in the world other than
[42:31] me that has debated this guy, Hillary
[42:34] Clinton and him. And you know what it's
[42:36] like? It's going into a debate with the
[42:38] stakes being that high and and Trump
[42:40] hadn't agreed to another debate.
[42:43] The stakes were so high.
[42:46] So that's an example of what I mean.
[42:51] >> You took something from that. You took a
[42:54] an underlying message about one's
[42:56] intentions from that. cuz I would if
[42:59] someone called me in the leadup to de
[43:01] debate prep and said something like that
[43:03] to me, I would assume that they don't
[43:05] want the best for me.
[43:08] >> My takeaway is his motivation was all
[43:12] about himself.
[43:14] >> That's what I would assume from that. I
[43:15] would assume that.
[43:16] >> Yeah. Right. Obviously, right?
[43:18] >> Yeah.
[43:20] >> It wasn't about my performance at the
[43:22] debate.
[43:24] >> Do you think he wanted you to win the
[43:25] election?
[43:28] I do because
[43:31] I was the only one who would be able to
[43:33] preserve his legacy.
[43:35] >> But even that's about him.
[43:38] >> Well, if I had to assume one of the
[43:40] reasons why he'd want me to win
[43:44] if Yeah.
[43:46] And of course, you know that this all
[43:48] wouldn't be happening. I don't think
[43:49] anybody
[43:51] who cares about the future of the
[43:54] country um the democracy or even just
[43:59] protecting the Constitution of the
[44:01] United States would have wanted this.
[44:07] Yeah.
[44:11] just a bit of a reminder to me that a
[44:12] lot of people in the highest places in
[44:15] in power are maybe a little bit
[44:18] self-focused.
[44:19] >> Yeah, that's that is the case.
[44:22] >> I think it um I think that is the case.
[44:25] I've seen it.
[44:28] >> I've seen it.
[44:29] >> Maybe dare I say that it that's how they
[44:33] get there.
[44:36] I think that may be a big part of it if
[44:39] they don't have something else that is
[44:41] the pull or the push.
[44:43] >> Yeah. Cuz I look at your life and your
[44:44] career and I see a dedication to the
[44:46] same thing which is like serving people
[44:48] and it's at the expense of financial
[44:50] opportunities and other opportunities
[44:52] you could have pursued and it seems to
[44:53] be really really authentic to me that
[44:55] your your agenda was to serve people. Um
[44:58] I can't say that about everybody else
[44:59] that I've studied or interviewed in the
[45:00] political environment. And the other
[45:02] thing the other thing that so I watch
[45:04] all these debates. I've been I'm such a
[45:06] big fan of American politics. So I was I
[45:07] was up at 12 years old watching Obama
[45:09] get inaugurated or whatever it was. I
[45:11] can't it was roughly I was a young kid
[45:12] at the time.
[45:13] >> I I stay up and watch all the debates. I
[45:15] always have since I was a kid. I watched
[45:16] that debate. But the debate that came
[45:18] before with Biden and Trump.
[45:20] >> It was so apparently clear.
[45:22] >> Yeah.
[45:23] >> That this was not okay.
[45:24] >> And it felt like it felt like the whole
[45:26] of the Democratic side of politics was
[45:29] pretending everything was okay. Mhm.
[45:31] >> That's kind of my observation from the
[45:33] UK. I was like, why are they all
[45:34] pretending everything's fine? But this
[45:36] was clearly an individual that was very
[45:38] much struggling with articulation, with
[45:39] ideas,
[45:40] >> and in the face of someone like Trump
[45:42] who
[45:43] >> to his credit
[45:46] is able to pounce on that to be very
[45:48] clear. and and he and he interestingly
[45:51] enough because of course I watched that
[45:53] debate very closely for many many
[45:55] reasons including um I had four
[45:57] interviews
[45:59] right after his debate
[46:01] >> okay
[46:02] >> to speak on behalf of the president
[46:05] during the debate and what was
[46:07] interesting in that debate was also to
[46:09] watch how it's a very rare circumstance
[46:12] that you see Donald Trump actually
[46:15] moderate
[46:18] it was fascinating
[46:21] You must have known. You must have you
[46:23] sat you sat there. You were in LA at the
[46:24] time, right?
[46:25] >> I was in LA at the Fairmont Hotel
[46:29] >> watching
[46:30] >> watching
[46:30] >> and
[46:31] >> taking vigorous notes. I had ordered,
[46:35] you know, like they had a little crude
[46:36] tape plate and I was like, "No, this is
[46:37] a pizza night. Ordered pizza for
[46:39] everyone." I had my a number of people
[46:42] with me, but I had a tight group of
[46:44] people with me in the room.
[46:47] He called me from debate camp.
[46:50] >> Mhm.
[46:51] >> The president did, Biden did. And I
[46:54] could tell something was a little off.
[46:57] And
[46:59] I was concerned about I I just he I
[47:04] don't think he wanted to debate is my
[47:05] point. He didn't want that debate. And
[47:08] you know, it's like any competition you
[47:11] go in, whether it's you're bidding for
[47:12] something, you're if it's sports, you
[47:15] got to want it.
[47:17] >> Yeah.
[47:17] >> Right. If you don't want to be in the
[47:19] competition,
[47:21] >> it will absolutely have an impact on
[47:24] your performance. And I don't think he
[47:26] I'm pretty sure he did not want to
[47:28] debate.
[47:29] >> How do you know? What were the signs?
[47:31] >> Well, we had conversations about it. I
[47:33] think he got talked into it. And in any
[47:36] event, so I'm watching the debate with
[47:38] my tight team. I wanted it to be a small
[47:40] team so I could just be candid as it's
[47:42] happening because I know I have four
[47:44] interviews right after. And you know, in
[47:47] every debate, I don't care who you are,
[47:50] there will be statistic wrong or you
[47:53] know, you name this country, but it was
[47:55] that country. That always happens. There
[47:58] is no such thing as a perfect debate. So
[48:01] there will be something to clean up.
[48:03] >> Yeah.
[48:03] >> And I expected that.
[48:06] And then, you know, we saw what we all
[48:08] saw.
[48:08] >> It was a car crash. It was a historic
[48:10] car crash. I actually can't think of a
[48:13] >> I'm a little bit of a historian of these
[48:14] debates because I I think they're
[48:16] fascinating sort of experiments and
[48:18] demonstrations of human psychology and
[48:20] how these zingers emerge and the binders
[48:22] full of women thing and you know the
[48:24] Obama's whole thing about the um
[48:26] >> the Romney and Obama in that debate
[48:28] where they talked about the the the
[48:30] military was no longer horses and
[48:32] bayonets. I just think it's so
[48:34] interesting because it's funny how a a
[48:37] sentence or a phrase can sway the
[48:40] general public in such a profound way
[48:41] >> and stick
[48:42] >> and stick and then as a marketer I spent
[48:44] 10 years in marketing I think about this
[48:46] a lot how like that that horses and
[48:48] bayonets the fact that I can remember
[48:49] that but I can't really remember
[48:50] anything else
[48:51] >> right that's interesting
[48:52] >> you know the power of the words so that
[48:54] in my view
[48:54] >> and the delivery right so the words
[48:56] combined with the delivery and the
[48:58] timing
[48:58] >> yeah and this is what you learn
[49:00] >> that has to that all has to coincide
[49:02] >> so what was real strategy going into
[49:04] that debate with Trump because you had
[49:05] those same moments where the cats and
[49:07] the dogs and all those all that
[49:08] unbelievable stuff and and also you it
[49:11] at home I was thinking oh she's she's
[49:13] trying to trigger him and it's working.
[49:16] >> Yeah, because he's so predictable that
[49:18] way.
[49:18] >> What were those things for you? Well,
[49:20] the first thing is that we had empty
[49:22] pads on our um podium and in in the
[49:28] debate camp and then therefore when I
[49:30] walked on stage after I shook his hand
[49:32] went back to my podium, I wrote a smiley
[49:34] face
[49:37] and cuz I just decided I was going to
[49:39] have fun
[49:41] because one of the things about these
[49:43] kinds of debates in particular is the
[49:46] person who's having fun wins.
[49:49] That's so true. We watched it back the
[49:52] other day and you're smiling
[49:54] >> and you you look like you're enjoying it
[49:55] and he looks frustrated.
[49:57] >> Yeah.
[49:58] >> So, that was intentional was to if you
[49:59] look like you're having fun,
[50:01] >> well, have fun, but though not just look
[50:02] cuz I think it's very difficult to look
[50:04] like you're having fun if you're not,
[50:05] right?
[50:06] >> Um,
[50:08] >> so you've got to find you've you have to
[50:10] find you have to this is a true for
[50:13] life. You got to see the humor in it.
[50:16] Otherwise, it's just going to undo you.
[50:17] Especially if you're dealing with heavy
[50:19] stuff, you've got to see the humor in
[50:20] it. And you know, like when he pulled
[50:23] out the cats and dogs thing,
[50:27] I couldn't even believe it. I couldn't
[50:29] because here's what happened. So
[50:32] I didn't know that he that this was
[50:34] being said, right?
[50:36] >> Let's give context for anyone that
[50:37] doesn't know.
[50:38] >> Okay. Yes. Right. you well
[50:39] >> well so from what I understand it's
[50:41] faint in my memory but um there was this
[50:43] like crazy rumor that I think it was im
[50:45] illegal immigrants were eating cats and
[50:47] dogs
[50:47] >> that Haitian immigrants regardless of
[50:50] their legal status
[50:52] >> in Ohio were eating their pets
[50:55] >> cats and dogs
[50:58] >> so I hadn't even heard about it cuz I'm
[51:01] in debate camp right
[51:04] and then two members of my team see him
[51:08] get off
[51:10] his his Trump plane with the main
[51:14] purveyor of this nonsense
[51:17] and then they realize if she's on the
[51:19] plane with him it is very possible last
[51:23] thing he heard was this thing. So they
[51:25] last minute tell me by the way um a lot
[51:30] of them call me boss because it's like
[51:31] this is what you do in law enforcement
[51:33] and it just stuck crazy. Hey boss, we
[51:35] got to tell you something. We didn't
[51:36] mention it to you. There's this whole
[51:38] thing that they're saying on that side
[51:40] about Haitian immigrants eating cats and
[51:42] dogs. And I was like, are you kidding
[51:43] me? That's ridiculous. No, but it's what
[51:47] they're saying. So just it may come up
[51:48] in the debate. Sure enough, it did. But
[51:50] see, here's the thing that I would say
[51:52] to you, Stephen, that
[51:55] again, one of the reasons I wrote the
[51:57] book is also there are lessons to be
[52:01] learned from those 107 days to be
[52:04] applied today.
[52:06] I believe that part of what is the
[52:10] method is say the outrageous thing,
[52:15] then everyone is going to focus on that
[52:17] outrageous thing.
[52:19] And meanwhile this is happening,
[52:22] right? And so meanwhile
[52:25] >> misdirection.
[52:26] >> Oh yeah.
[52:27] >> Yeah.
[52:28] >> And misdirection includes, by the way,
[52:31] talking about immigrants eating cats and
[52:34] dogs and not talking about what's your
[52:36] plan for working Americans to bring down
[52:39] the prices.
[52:41] So then the press covers that whole
[52:43] thing and not oh where was his plan for
[52:47] bringing down prices.
[52:49] >> Here's what I've come to learn um in the
[52:51] last sort of 10 years working in in
[52:53] marketing is I have this um particular
[52:56] chapter in my last book where I say
[52:58] useless absurdity defines will define
[53:01] you more as a brand than useful
[53:02] practicality. And what I mean by this,
[53:04] >> right, that's beautifully said,
[53:06] >> is when I, this is the analogy I give. I
[53:08] went to this gym in Canary Warf and I
[53:10] walk in and it's got this 100 foot
[53:11] climbing wall. It's massive gym,
[53:13] incredible. I come home, I tell my
[53:14] girlfriend, I go, "Babe, there's this
[53:15] incredible gym." And then the next
[53:17] sentence out of my mouth is the most
[53:19] absurd thing because I know that will be
[53:20] the most impactful. So I say, "They've
[53:21] even got a 100 foot climbing wall." Cuz
[53:23] if I say that, it implicitly tells them,
[53:26] you know, tells my girlfriend, "This gym
[53:27] is big." And and even in my last
[53:29] company, the thing that the press
[53:31] focused on in my office wasn't our work,
[53:33] our case studies, the clients we had. It
[53:35] was that we had this massive blue slide
[53:37] that went into a ballpool. So whenever
[53:39] the press came, they said, "Can you go
[53:40] stand by the blue slide?" It was all
[53:42] about this blue slide. The most absurd
[53:44] thing gar all the attention. And I
[53:46] actually think to
[53:48] Trump's strategy is he leads with he's a
[53:52] master labeler. Sleepy Joe. You know,
[53:55] you can't
[53:56] >> is very gifted.
[53:58] Don't discount the guy in terms of that.
[54:00] >> How do you beat someone playing that
[54:01] game?
[54:02] >> You have to be relentless on focusing on
[54:05] what's actually happening.
[54:07] >> Does that work?
[54:08] >> And it means it means also
[54:09] deconstructing. So that I mean one of
[54:11] the things for example that I've been
[54:13] talking about recently is there's a word
[54:15] that applies so well to him in this era
[54:17] which is a phrase gaslighting.
[54:20] Right? So there's a whole lot of
[54:22] gaslighting happening which is basically
[54:24] misrepresenting, lying, scapegoating,
[54:27] distracting, right, from what's really
[54:29] occurring, including like this whole
[54:32] thing where he's coming down so hard and
[54:36] with these mass deportations which is
[54:38] picking up a lot of American citizens by
[54:40] the way in the process, hardworking
[54:42] people in the process. And what he would
[54:45] have people believe is that your
[54:48] predicament
[54:50] is because this is what he actually is
[54:53] trying to sell. Your predicament is
[54:56] because of relatively powerless people.
[54:59] So you don't focus on the powerful
[55:01] people.
[55:04] He's basically saying to the American
[55:06] people, you have less because of people
[55:10] who have even less than you. Here's the
[55:13] counterpoint. It works.
[55:15] >> Yes, evidently.
[55:17] But there is, you know, but at some
[55:19] point the veneer and the the the
[55:22] deflection
[55:24] has to wear off. I don't know when
[55:26] exactly that is going to happen. And I
[55:27] think that, you know, listen, um, the
[55:30] tariffs taking hold and when we get
[55:32] around to the holiday season and people
[55:35] realize how many toys are made in China,
[55:38] what strengthens that approach is the
[55:41] rapid amount of dis disinformation that
[55:43] is spreading. It's so much and it just
[55:47] spreads like wildfire. And trying to
[55:49] stay in front of that with fact, much
[55:51] less, to your point, practical messaging
[55:53] and logic, it is a real challenge. It's
[55:56] funny because I I sit here a lot with
[55:58] neuroscientists and psychologists who
[56:00] tell me about how the brain works and
[56:01] they at a simple level they talk about
[56:04] these two parts of the brain which is
[56:05] like the rational prefrontal cortex and
[56:07] then the emotional center like the lyic
[56:09] system the amydala and they always tell
[56:11] me that the most memorable um the part
[56:14] of the brain that holds memories the
[56:16] easiest and the best and that garners
[56:18] the most attention is the emotional
[56:19] center of the brain the amydala. So if I
[56:21] say
[56:21] >> that these people, these brown people
[56:23] are coming over and they're rapists and
[56:26] murderers.
[56:26] >> Yeah.
[56:27] >> It's much it's much more emotionally
[56:30] captivating than you telling me about
[56:32] like
[56:32] >> statistics on on how America recovered
[56:36] faster than any so-called wealthy
[56:38] country economically from the pandmic.
[56:40] >> Yeah, I I'll forget that within 10
[56:42] seconds of you just saying it. But the
[56:43] rapist and murderers thing, like my
[56:45] objective sense goes, well, no, come on.
[56:47] It's not the problem. But there's part
[56:49] of me that remembers that and that's
[56:50] even as someone who I think is
[56:51] relatively informed on the the reality
[56:54] of the situation. I still I remember um
[56:57] Dr. I think it was Dr. Tally Sharet.
[56:59] She's a neuroscientist. So she
[57:01] understands that vaccines don't give
[57:04] kids autism.
[57:05] >> Yeah.
[57:05] >> But she recalls this time in the
[57:07] election many.
[57:10] She recalls um I think it was Ben
[57:12] Carlson or someone talking about the
[57:14] science and then she the camera pans to
[57:16] Trump and Trump is saying recounting a
[57:19] story where a child who was this big
[57:22] three-year-old beautiful child and they
[57:24] came up to her with a needle this big
[57:27] >> and they gave her the vaccine and she
[57:29] got autism. Now science on one hand an
[57:33] emotional story in the other. I know.
[57:34] >> Tally, I think, said to me at the time,
[57:36] she goes, "Even though I know it's not
[57:37] true, there was part of me
[57:39] >> that was a little bit scared."
[57:41] >> I know.
[57:41] >> So, my question here is how does how
[57:43] does the Democratic Party win in such a
[57:47] war when you're being fought with
[57:49] emotion and fear? How do you win with
[57:52] logic and rationality? like huh
[57:55] >> I'll I'll answer your question directly
[57:57] but I want to just add to the question
[58:00] um that I think part of the question has
[58:02] to be what is the responsible of media
[58:05] what is the role of corporateowned media
[58:09] um god bless independent media
[58:13] because a lot of it is also about what
[58:17] set of information are people working
[58:19] with you know for example I've talked to
[58:21] a number of people who voted voted for
[58:23] me.
[58:25] Saying to them who are having debates,
[58:28] disagreement, you know, ending
[58:30] relationships with people who voted for
[58:32] him.
[58:34] And part of what I'm asking people to do
[58:39] is not to assume that the people with
[58:43] whom they disagree are working with the
[58:45] same set of information. Now, I didn't
[58:47] say facts because 2 plus 2 is four,
[58:51] >> but
[58:52] I think it's a big mistake for us to
[58:54] assume we're all working with the same
[58:56] information.
[58:58] And then when you compound that with,
[59:00] you know, intentional efforts to
[59:03] misinform and disinform and targeted, I
[59:07] I was a member of the Senate
[59:09] Intelligence Committee when we
[59:10] investigated Russia's interference in
[59:12] the 2016 election.
[59:15] We declassified our findings. We made
[59:17] them public. It included the fact that
[59:19] this adversarial nation included in what
[59:22] they targeted. They targeted black
[59:23] voters
[59:25] with the assumption that there are
[59:28] certain people and demographically
[59:29] certain groups who are more susceptible
[59:32] to an argument about why they should
[59:34] distrust their government because they
[59:36] have a lived experience that tells them
[59:38] that. And so I would say flippantly, oh,
[59:41] so now all of a sudden the issue of race
[59:43] in America is a national security issue.
[59:45] So everybody needs to deal with it. We
[59:48] know that certain demographics are
[59:50] targeted with miss and disinformation.
[59:52] Be they what we've seen around targeting
[59:54] young voters or other groups based on
[59:56] race or gender.
[59:58] So when we talk about the role of the
[60:01] Democratic party, there is a very big
[60:03] role to play and there is a role for us
[60:06] to to to require social media companies
[60:09] to play, media companies to play and so
[60:12] on because information is coming from
[60:15] all of these places and and the
[60:18] challenge is as big as
[60:21] do we are we all working with facts.
[60:26] We have a team at my company, Flight
[60:27] Story, called Flight X. And their
[60:29] primary responsibility is innovating
[60:32] across our business so that we can save
[60:35] time, money, be better at what we do.
[60:37] And one of the recent challenges I've
[60:38] set to the team Flight X is to find ways
[60:40] to save our company more time. And in
[60:43] that conversation, Fiverr Pro, who a
[60:45] sponsor of this podcast, came up. Fiverr
[60:47] Pro, if you don't know, is like a
[60:48] strategic lever we pull. It's a
[60:50] marketplace of experts across 750
[60:52] different categories. every single one
[60:54] of them handv vetted for quality and
[60:56] they have enterprisegrade reliability.
[60:58] And because I'm quite curious about
[61:00] what's possible with something like
[61:01] Fiverr Pro, we're going to go one step
[61:03] further and over the next few weeks,
[61:05] we're running an experiment with Fiverr
[61:07] Pro to see just how much time we can
[61:09] save and how much we can unlock using
[61:11] their talent to accelerate our business.
[61:13] So, let's see how it goes. And in the
[61:16] meantime, if you're looking for a player
[61:18] talent to give your team time back, head
[61:20] to fiverr.com/diary
[61:22] and get 10% off your first order when
[61:25] you use my code diary.
[61:28] A word you said there um piqued my
[61:30] interest, which is the word independent
[61:32] media.
[61:33] >> Yes,
[61:33] >> I am independent media.
[61:35] >> Bless you.
[61:36] >> And I'm in a group of my peers like the
[61:39] big podcasters in the world like Joe
[61:40] Rogan, etc., and Alex Cooper. I know who
[61:43] show you Anton um in as part of your
[61:45] campaign.
[61:46] >> The media landscape is changing before
[61:48] our eyes
[61:48] >> rapidly.
[61:49] >> You're sat in a set now. You're the
[61:51] madame vice vice president. You're sat
[61:53] in effectively my kitchen,
[61:55] >> my old kitchen where they started, you
[61:56] know,
[61:57] >> and that's crazy. Like 20 years ago, the
[61:59] thought that you'd come to my kitchen is
[62:01] such a crazy thing. But it's in part now
[62:04] because of the democratization of these
[62:05] platforms and creating the content is
[62:07] much cheaper and we have distribution
[62:08] now across these big platforms.
[62:11] Many would say that it changed the
[62:12] course of the election. Podcasting,
[62:14] >> not just the podcast you did or didn't
[62:16] go on, but just the conversations that
[62:18] take place on these podcasts. And
[62:19] >> as I have to say, you know, as
[62:21] podcasters, we don't have the same rigor
[62:24] as traditional journalists, who I
[62:25] respect a lot. We don't have the same
[62:27] teams and real time fact, all those
[62:29] kinds of things.
[62:31] >> Podcasting, there was lots of
[62:32] conversation around you going on Joe
[62:33] Rogan's show or not going on, which
[62:35] >> what is the what is the truth there for
[62:37] anyone that hasn't yet read the book? Um
[62:39] because Trump did like a hundred million
[62:41] views on Joe Rogan's show and it in
[62:44] three hours sat there getting to know
[62:46] Trump and for better or for worse you
[62:49] probably walked away from that
[62:50] conversation feeling like you knew who
[62:52] he was.
[62:52] >> I wanted to do Joe Rogan show and there
[62:55] was a lot of games being played but I
[62:58] wanted to do Joe Rogan show. I think
[62:59] podcasting is a very
[63:03] powerful medium for people to get
[63:07] information and and to your point a lot
[63:10] of people that is a main source of
[63:12] information and it's important for us to
[63:15] support that. Joe Joe says you wanted he
[63:18] want you want him to come to you which
[63:20] is very un Joe like in terms of he
[63:22] doesn't really travel in hindsight
[63:26] do you wish you'd gone and done the show
[63:29] for 3 hours at his studio in hindsight
[63:33] it I' I'd mean really it just would be
[63:36] what what were we giving up I wanted to
[63:38] do his show and a lot of people advised
[63:40] me not to do his show because they
[63:42] assumed as it turned out to be correct
[63:44] that he was supporting Trump and that it
[63:46] would not be a productive piece for me.
[63:49] But just like when I went on Fox News
[63:51] with Brett Bear, my perspective was
[63:55] they may have their bias, but there are
[63:57] people that listen who are open-minded,
[63:59] and I'm going to go there and give them
[64:01] a chance to get to know me and give me a
[64:03] chance to make my case to them.
[64:04] >> So, that was my perspective on Joe
[64:06] Rogan, just like it was my perspective
[64:08] on Fox.
[64:11] >> There was a lot of games being played
[64:12] around the scheduling and it didn't
[64:14] happen. Um, and you know, I I don't have
[64:18] anything against um certainly not
[64:20] against the people who turn on to Joe
[64:22] Rogan and would love to be able to talk
[64:24] with him in a direct manner um as I
[64:26] wanted to during the campaign.
[64:28] >> Do you in hindsight wish you just put
[64:29] your foot down and said, "I'm going to
[64:31] go do it."
[64:32] >> I don't know if it would have made a
[64:33] difference,
[64:35] but yeah. No, I wanted to do it. So, let
[64:37] me just say that, right? So, I wanted to
[64:39] do it and it would have been great to do
[64:41] and I think it would have been helpful
[64:42] to do.
[64:43] >> Yeah, I think so. So, it's just I mean
[64:44] that the issue it was really about
[64:46] what's the tradeoff in terms of votes
[64:48] and where I spend my time. Do I spend my
[64:51] time traveling for 5 hours and back
[64:53] versus being for that period of time in
[64:55] a swing state?
[64:56] >> Mhm.
[64:56] >> And that was the tradeoff.
[64:58] >> I guess it goes to the point
[64:59] >> it wasn't about I don't want to do Joe
[65:00] Rogan or it believe me at that point in
[65:04] a campaign it's not about oh is somebody
[65:06] coming to me or me going to them. I
[65:08] could care less about that. Pride is not
[65:10] associated with it. It is more about
[65:12] >> it's it is literally about return on
[65:14] investment.
[65:15] >> Okay. And this goes to our point about
[65:17] efficiency earlier.
[65:18] >> Yeah. Exact exactly right. The only
[65:20] there's only one candidate.
[65:23] >> So where am I spending my time to get
[65:25] the greatest return on the investment?
[65:27] >> If I was in charge of your campaign
[65:30] >> I would have 100%
[65:33] put you in that environment. Even when I
[65:35] look at the trade-off in part because
[65:37] someone like me and I consider myself to
[65:39] be like genuinely really objective
[65:40] >> and my friends know me as being extreme
[65:42] not just objective on camera but
[65:44] objective in my personal life.
[65:45] >> I would have when you see a certain
[65:48] environment present someone in a certain
[65:51] way.
[65:52] >> You really like the
[65:53] >> the thing that can burst that bubble is
[65:55] seeing that person go into that
[65:56] environment. And like when I saw you on
[65:58] Fox News, I watched that interview as
[65:59] well.
[66:00] >> Um
[66:01] >> I actually think it strengthens
[66:04] strengthens your supporters and actually
[66:05] those independents who are in that space
[66:07] too can can get a feel for you. So I
[66:09] would have love to see and I actually
[66:10] think
[66:10] >> I hope in this next election cycle when
[66:12] is it 2028 I really would love to see
[66:16] >> both sides going to both sides and I
[66:17] actually think that's happening now
[66:18] going into those going into those
[66:20] environments. I do also tend to think
[66:22] that Joe would have been fair.
[66:24] >> Mhm.
[66:25] >> Well that's why I wanted to do it. I had
[66:26] to assume that that was possible
[66:29] >> and either way he's very popular. I
[66:32] would have loved to watch that.
[66:34] >> I I regret that we didn't do it. I
[66:38] definitely regret that we didn't do it.
[66:40] And um
[66:42] listen, I have
[66:45] been doing my work long enough that
[66:49] for me it has I've never had the luxury
[66:51] of saying I don't want to go into
[66:52] uncomfortable situations.
[66:54] >> Mhm.
[66:55] >> You would need to have a different
[66:56] profession.
[66:58] PR people some some can sometimes [ __ ]
[67:00] things up for for other people. I think
[67:02] I think in the new world there's this
[67:05] new requirement to be more like a glass
[67:07] box and less like a black box. I think
[67:10] >> in 20 years ago the whole strategy of
[67:11] businesses and brands and CEOs
[67:13] executives was to basically be black
[67:15] boxes where the PR team paints the
[67:17] perception on the outside and in this
[67:19] digital world where it's like the media
[67:21] and platforms are distributed and all of
[67:23] my employees here have cameras on them
[67:25] at all times.
[67:26] The defense is like transparency because
[67:29] I'm not going to let you craft my
[67:31] narrative. You're going to see it.
[67:32] >> That's why I wrote the book.
[67:33] >> Exactly.
[67:33] >> History is going to write about those
[67:35] 107 days and I'm not going to let
[67:38] >> that piece of American history be
[67:39] written without my voice being present.
[67:42] >> Are you going to run again? Cuz I look
[67:43] at the polls. I looked at the polls and
[67:45] you're leading for the Democratic side
[67:47] and there isn't really a clear
[67:48] Democratic
[67:49] >> candidate. I I interviewed Gav Gavin
[67:51] Newsome as well, but when I look at the
[67:52] polls, you're still leading.
[67:54] >> Yeah. You don't know.
[67:56] >> I don't know. Honestly,
[67:57] >> I feel like you know in your heart.
[67:59] >> What do I know in my heart?
[68:00] >> I feel like you know if you're you're
[68:01] going to run in your heart or if you
[68:03] have a calling or a feeling to is
[68:06] something germinating.
[68:07] >> I you know I'm focused on the book tour
[68:09] sincerely. Yeah. And part of how I'm
[68:12] feeling right now, part of the reason I
[68:15] didn't run for governor of California, I
[68:18] really don't want to be transactional
[68:19] right now. You know, I don't I don't
[68:23] want to be present because I'm asking
[68:26] for a vote.
[68:27] >> Okay. Yeah. What's the case for running
[68:29] again and what's the case for not
[68:30] running again?
[68:34] >> H I think the case for running again is
[68:38] if I can make a difference. Honestly, if
[68:41] I can make a difference,
[68:43] you know, if I feel that I can offer
[68:46] something as president of the United
[68:49] States that would be
[68:54] not only
[68:56] uplifting to the American people, but
[68:58] would be um
[69:01] about, you know, getting us
[69:05] on a correct trajectory.
[69:07] >> Do you know what my next question is
[69:08] going to be? What
[69:09] >> do you believe that you can offer
[69:10] something to the United States that's
[69:11] going to be uplifting and get us on a
[69:12] better trajectory?
[69:15] >> I mean, that's why I ran the last time.
[69:17] Um,
[69:19] so 28 is is a far it's I mean it's
[69:23] practically tomorrow, but it's it's not
[69:25] and we'll have to see what happens over
[69:26] the course of these next few months,
[69:28] several months.
[69:30] >> Is there a case against running again?
[69:33] What would that be?
[69:34] >> You know, it's difficult to run for
[69:35] president. takes a toll on your family.
[69:38] Takes a real toll on your family. You
[69:40] know, anyone running for president
[69:44] should really take very seriously the
[69:47] decision cuz it is not for the faint of
[69:50] heart. You have to be able to take a
[69:53] punch and throw a punch, but you got to
[69:56] be able to take a punch.
[69:58] >> A lot of punches.
[69:59] >> Yeah. There's something that comes with
[70:00] success. whether you're running for
[70:02] president of the United States, build a
[70:03] successful business, have a public
[70:05] profile,
[70:08] um, which is among the the the difficult
[70:13] aspects of it, and there are so many
[70:16] positive aspects, but among the
[70:18] difficult aspects is
[70:21] putting yourself out there in a way that
[70:25] you invariably
[70:27] will be in a position hopefully Not with
[70:31] a lot of people,
[70:33] but where you will be misunderstood.
[70:36] That's an awful feeling.
[70:38] >> Yeah, it is. Yeah.
[70:39] >> Oh, it's an awful feeling to be
[70:41] misunderstood
[70:43] in this environment in particular.
[70:45] Invariably, you will put yourself in a
[70:48] position where some people will hate
[70:49] you. It's awful.
[70:53] They don't know you, but they'll hate
[70:55] you.
[70:57] And
[70:59] so to do anything that is about
[71:02] distinguishing yourself
[71:05] by virtue of the thing you can offer or
[71:09] a differentiation from yourself and
[71:11] others of you know in a similar category
[71:16] it it exposes you to a lot. Um and so
[71:21] you have to know why you're doing it.
[71:25] And I believe that you have to do it for
[71:29] something that is bigger than yourself,
[71:33] not about your own power, not about your
[71:36] ego,
[71:37] not about your entitlement. It has to be
[71:40] because to endure the the the the not
[71:45] just the process of getting into the
[71:47] job, but the job itself,
[71:50] you got to be clear about why you're
[71:51] there. on that night when you the
[71:54] results come in and you realize that the
[71:56] election hasn't gone your way and that
[71:57] Trump is going to be elected. What would
[71:59] I have seen if I was a fly on the wall
[72:01] in the room?
[72:02] >> I was in a state of shock.
[72:04] >> Really?
[72:05] >> Did you think the day before that you
[72:07] were going to win?
[72:08] >> Mhm.
[72:10] >> Yeah.
[72:10] >> And so when did the the proverbial penny
[72:13] drop? when I got a call from my campaign
[72:16] manager
[72:18] that it looks like we need 200,000 more
[72:21] votes that we can't find.
[72:24] Meaning, it's just the map, the numbers.
[72:28] And
[72:30] the thing I kept saying over and over
[72:32] again, I was in a state of shock. I I
[72:34] was
[72:35] I was so inarticulate,
[72:38] but maybe very articulate. What I kept
[72:41] saying over and over again is, "My God,
[72:43] my God, my God."
[72:44] >> Really,
[72:45] >> over and I couldn't stop. I
[72:49] um I haven't felt that
[72:52] emotion, anything similar to the emotion
[72:54] I felt that day in for quite some time.
[72:56] Um other than
[73:00] the grief I felt when my mother died,
[73:04] I fel I knew what was going to happen to
[73:06] our country.
[73:08] I knew I knew the harm that was going to
[73:12] happen to people
[73:14] and I I knew it. I knew what was going
[73:17] to happen. You know, it's um
[73:23] it's not like it's not about
[73:26] winning
[73:28] versus losing. It was never it was I
[73:32] knew the consequence
[73:35] of the outcome of that election and that
[73:37] pained me. So
[73:40] >> I can still see the pain in your face.
[73:42] >> Oh, it's awful.
[73:45] It's awful. You look at what's
[73:47] happening. It's I mean
[73:51] it it's awful what's right now.
[73:55] The man is building a ballroom for a
[73:59] bunch of his rich friends
[74:02] while
[74:03] millions and millions of people are
[74:05] about to lose their health coverage in
[74:07] terms of their being able to afford
[74:09] premiums for their health care.
[74:12] You look at the weaponization of the
[74:15] Department of Justice
[74:17] against political enemies. How titans of
[74:21] industry are so afraid
[74:25] that the capitulation that we're seeing
[74:27] across the board, whether it be
[74:29] universities, law firms, media
[74:30] companies,
[74:32] what's happening around gutting the
[74:35] Department of Education,
[74:37] lunch programs for for for lowincome
[74:40] children. I IEPs,
[74:44] individual education placement for for
[74:47] special needs kids have I recently I'm
[74:50] hearing the stories from mothers in
[74:52] particular whose children have special
[74:54] needs and they can't get an IEP.
[74:58] These are babies, the children who are
[75:00] most in need, their parents who are
[75:01] struggling.
[75:03] If you know a parent who has a special
[75:05] needs child, what that means to their
[75:08] life emotionally, physically,
[75:11] financially,
[75:13] and and we're not even giving them
[75:15] assistance with their educational
[75:16] program for their children. Meanwhile,
[75:19] you're building a a gilded ballroom.
[75:25] So, the harm,
[75:27] it's extraordinary.
[75:29] all those working people, the tariffs,
[75:31] what this is meaning for people. He he
[75:34] made a promise that on day one he was
[75:35] going to bring down prices and
[75:39] prices are higher for groceries.
[75:41] Inflation is higher. Unemployment is
[75:43] higher. And by the way, Stephen, it must
[75:45] be said the failure of the Democratic
[75:48] party will be going forward
[75:52] to overlook the fact that it is bigger
[75:54] than this one guy.
[75:57] It is not just about this one person who
[76:00] occupies the oval office. We are
[76:02] witnessing what is the swift
[76:05] implementation a high velocity event
[76:07] that is the swift implementation of a
[76:09] plan that has been decades in the
[76:11] making. The strategy for dealing with
[76:13] this moment has to include having some
[76:16] historical perspective on how we got
[76:18] here. That project 2025 didn't just fall
[76:20] out of the sky. The idea of going after
[76:23] public education, that's not new. the
[76:25] Federalist Society, the Heritage
[76:27] Foundation,
[76:29] what's what the the gerrymandering of
[76:31] districts, the the packing the court,
[76:34] this stuff. This is about a an agenda
[76:41] that is not going to begin and end with
[76:44] one person. And
[76:47] the destruction, it's profound. There
[76:50] are there are however
[76:54] a small group of people who have access
[76:57] to the power and are close to the power
[76:59] who are doing quite well.
[77:02] the rest you look what what's going to
[77:05] happen terms of working people
[77:07] >> does the again as an objective observer
[77:10] the democratic party needs to take
[77:13] responsibility
[77:14] for you know because the US operates as
[77:17] this sort of two-party system where it's
[77:19] kind of like this person versus this
[77:20] person left versus right
[77:21] >> right
[77:22] >> the left lost they played it wrong from
[77:25] the the Democratic perspective they're
[77:27] paying the price of losing the game of
[77:28] chess and so I think about the
[77:30] Democratic party and you know They can
[77:32] point at the the consequences of losing
[77:34] that game, but I feel like the
[77:36] Democratic Party needs to get their [ __ ]
[77:37] together so that they don't lose the
[77:38] game again.
[77:39] >> I agree.
[77:40] >> And that's the personal responsibility
[77:41] point, which is like how do how do you
[77:42] stop yourself from finding yourself in a
[77:45] situation where at the last minute Joe
[77:47] Biden is pulled out with 100 days to go
[77:49] and no one mentioned it. I mean, you say
[77:51] in the book that you you you at the time
[77:53] thought of it as grace. You talk about
[77:55] this on page 46. You say you thought it
[77:57] was grace to not basically mention that
[77:59] there was a problem and grace not to
[78:01] tell Joe Biden to pull out earlier,
[78:03] >> but actually in hindsight, you now think
[78:04] it was probably reckless not to tell him
[78:06] to pull out
[78:07] >> on my part. Yeah.
[78:08] >> So what what what is that to you? What
[78:10] does the Democratic Party need to to do
[78:12] to
[78:14] >> First of all, you know, if I had if I
[78:17] had done it over
[78:20] again, part of the reflection,
[78:22] um, you know, we had the infrastructure
[78:26] deal. We had the Chips Act, so we're
[78:28] building back up America's
[78:30] infrastructure. It's 150 years old.
[78:32] Chips is about
[78:34] manufacturing chips. um US manufacturing
[78:38] both incredibly important. If I had to
[78:40] do it over again, I would have first
[78:42] gone with our family policy that was
[78:46] about extension of the child tax credit,
[78:48] affordable child care, paid family
[78:52] leave. We needed to deal with the
[78:55] immediate issues affecting the American
[78:58] people. In fact, that's why I ran for
[79:00] the 107 days on those issues, including
[79:02] having Medicare cover, for example, for
[79:05] people in the sandwich generation who
[79:06] are taking care of young children and
[79:08] older parents, Medicare cover home
[79:10] health care, right?
[79:12] >> Why I offered for small businesses that
[79:15] they would get a $50,000 tax credit
[79:18] because nobody can for startup small
[79:20] businesses because nobody can start up a
[79:22] small business on a $5,000 tax credit,
[79:24] right? So
[79:25] >> do you think the left is somewhat seen
[79:26] as the enemy of entrepreneurship?
[79:29] >> I think I think there is that
[79:31] perception. I don't know if that is the
[79:33] case in reality but I think we need we
[79:34] have some work to do.
[79:35] >> Yeah. I mean I I talk about in the book
[79:38] for example I think it was a mistake to
[79:40] not invite Elon Musk when we had um and
[79:43] I'm no fan of his but I admire his work
[79:47] as an innovator
[79:48] >> and um as as you know the what he has
[79:52] done in terms of American manufacturing
[79:55] of electric vehicles. We should have had
[79:57] him at the White House when we had all
[79:58] the other electric vehicle American
[80:01] electric vehicle manufacturers. Right.
[80:03] >> I think this is part of the problem. And
[80:04] when I read that, I was really happy to
[80:05] read that cuz you can disagree with
[80:07] someone in part, but still have the
[80:10] nuance to be able to acknowledge this
[80:13] part's good, but if you just shut them
[80:14] out because of one thing, then you
[80:15] really drive the vision.
[80:17] >> I mean, this gets back to my earlier
[80:18] point about what's the motivation
[80:21] >> for the decisions that a leader makes.
[80:24] And
[80:25] the motivation I has has to be what is
[80:28] for the greater good
[80:31] and and have the ability to put aside
[80:34] you know those things that may may fall
[80:36] in the context of being more personal.
[80:38] >> Mhm.
[80:38] >> But I think we have to do a better job
[80:40] of also focusing on being a bit more
[80:44] bold.
[80:46] For example, I think we should reduce
[80:49] voting age to 16.
[80:53] I'll tell you why.
[80:56] So,
[80:57] Gen Z,
[81:00] they're age about 13 through 27.
[81:03] They've only known the climate crisis.
[81:05] They missed substantial parts of their
[81:07] education because of the pandemic.
[81:11] If they're in high school or college,
[81:14] especially in college, it is very likely
[81:16] that whatever they've chosen as their
[81:18] major for study may not result in an
[81:20] affordable wage.
[81:23] They've coined the term climate anxiety
[81:27] to describe fear of not only being able
[81:31] to buy a home, but that fear it'll be
[81:34] wiped out by extreme weather, but fear
[81:35] of having children.
[81:38] Um, it is expected that Gen Z will have
[81:40] 10 to 12 jobs in their lifetime. They
[81:43] are a larger number than boomers.
[81:46] There are specific generation of people
[81:48] who are going to impact our nation and
[81:50] the world. And I think we must invest in
[81:54] them. But I think that they are rightly
[81:55] impatient with a lot of what is the
[81:59] tradition of leadership right now. And
[82:02] if they were able to vote because they
[82:04] know everything that's happening right
[82:06] now is going to impact them more than
[82:08] anybody older than them for the most
[82:09] part in terms of how these systems work.
[82:13] If they're voting right now at 16 and
[82:17] up, they're going to be talking about
[82:19] the importance of climate. They're going
[82:20] to be talking about the importance of
[82:23] figuring out how AI is going to affect
[82:25] the future of the workforce. They're
[82:27] going to be focused on what are we
[82:29] really doing about affordable housing.
[82:31] And basically in politics, here's the
[82:34] the hard truth about this. There are two
[82:37] centers of power that tend to influence
[82:40] how politicians think. Groups that vote
[82:44] the most and people who write the most
[82:46] checks.
[82:48] And I'm going to go every day with the
[82:50] people the people and and thinking about
[82:54] how do we strengthen people actually
[82:56] going to the polls and voting. Back to
[82:58] my point in 2024 one-third of the
[83:00] electorate didn't vote. Let's focus on
[83:01] why and are we talking with them? Are we
[83:05] offering them bold solutions?
[83:08] Are we bringing ideas forward that are
[83:12] speaking to their immediate needs?
[83:15] Are we are we doing it in an effective
[83:17] way? Back to your point about podcast
[83:19] and other mediums.
[83:22] >> If you run again, do you think you'll go
[83:23] into those more rightle leaning
[83:25] environments, media environments? Would
[83:27] you go on, you know, I'm not saying
[83:28] Joe's rightwing, but would you go on
[83:30] Joe's show?
[83:32] >> I would certainly I would go at Joe's
[83:33] show if I'm not running. I have a lot to
[83:35] say.
[83:36] >> Do you know when you'll make a decision?
[83:37] Like what's the time frame for someone?
[83:39] >> I don't know. I mean, I I don't know. I
[83:41] obviously at some point we'll need to
[83:43] make the decision. I haven't thought
[83:45] about the timeline. Probably in the next
[83:47] year. I mean, it's what is it? November
[83:49] of 28. Primaries would be in June.
[83:53] >> And since that day when Trump won the
[83:55] election and you were sat there saying,
[83:58] "Oh god, oh god, under your breath." How
[84:01] has the balance of that decision shifted
[84:03] over time? Has the conviction grown from
[84:05] that moment? Like in that, if I had
[84:07] asked you in that moment when you were
[84:08] saying, "Oh god, oh god, under your
[84:09] breath." Would you have said never
[84:10] again?
[84:12] And today are you more on the side of
[84:14] potentially?
[84:15] >> That's a great question. I think
[84:19] well I could start with this. I think my
[84:21] family would have said never again. I
[84:23] think that as time has gone by. Um and
[84:28] people have had a chance including
[84:29] myself to kind of
[84:33] sit with it, reflect on it. Writing the
[84:35] book was very cathartic. Um being away
[84:37] from it in terms of space and time. It
[84:40] it has a way of mitigating the pain of
[84:42] what that process was.
[84:44] >> Just like grief.
[84:45] >> Yeah.
[84:47] >> Use the word grief to describe that
[84:48] feeling. So
[84:49] >> you get to acceptance at some point and
[84:51] >> Yeah, that's a really good point. Yeah,
[84:53] you're right. That's right. And you get
[84:55] to process it
[84:57] >> in a way that also is about what's my
[85:00] role to play
[85:02] and what could I have done differently
[85:05] as a way to help guide future decisions,
[85:07] whatever that be. I've built companies
[85:10] from scratch and backed many more. And
[85:12] there's a blind spot that I keep seeing
[85:14] in early stage founders. They spend very
[85:16] little time thinking about HR. And it's
[85:18] not because they're reckless or they
[85:19] don't care. It's because they're
[85:21] obsessed with building their companies.
[85:23] And I can't fault them for that. At that
[85:24] stage, you're thinking about the
[85:26] product. How to attract new customers,
[85:27] how to grow your team, really, how to
[85:29] survive. And HR slips down the list
[85:31] because it doesn't feel urgent, but
[85:33] sooner or later it is. And when things
[85:35] get messy, tools like our sponsor today,
[85:38] Just Works, go from being a nice to have
[85:40] to being a necessity. Something goes
[85:42] sideways and you find yourself having
[85:43] conversations you did not see coming.
[85:45] This is when you learn that HR really is
[85:47] the infrastructure of your company. And
[85:48] without it, things wobble. And Just Work
[85:51] stops you learning this the hard way. It
[85:52] takes care of the stuff that would
[85:54] otherwise drain your energy and your
[85:56] time, automating payroll, health
[85:58] insurance, benefits, and it gives your
[85:59] team human support at any hour. It grows
[86:02] with your small business from startup
[86:04] through to growth, even when you start
[86:06] hiring team members abroad. So, if you
[86:08] want HR support that's there through the
[86:09] exciting times and the challenging
[86:11] times, head to justworks.com now. That's
[86:14] justworks.com.
[86:17] >> Right guys, going to go get Steve. The
[86:18] guest is here. Ready?
[86:21] >> Come in.
[86:21] >> OH MY GOD. STEVE, what
[86:24] >> what are you doing?
[86:25] >> This is uh the Bontage face mask. It's
[86:27] good for blemishes, wrinkles, uh clears
[86:30] up the skin. It's red light. Have you
[86:32] not used it before?
[86:33] >> No.
[86:33] >> I tried this before. It's um it's really
[86:36] really good. It shines red light on your
[86:38] face which helps increase and boost
[86:40] collagen production. Actually found it
[86:41] out cuz of the misses. Seen her wearing
[86:43] it. She terrified me a couple of nights
[86:44] in a row. Um I thought it was to scare
[86:46] people with but actually it's really
[86:48] really good for your skin. So they are a
[86:50] sponsor of the podcast and uh I've been
[86:51] using it every day for about a year and
[86:54] a half now.
[86:54] >> Wow.
[86:55] >> Well, Steve is great.
[86:57] >> Yes. And Boncharge ships worldwide with
[86:59] easy returns and a year-long warranty on
[87:01] all of their products. So visit
[87:02] bondcharge.com/diary
[87:04] for 25% off on any product sitewide, but
[87:07] you have to order through that link.
[87:09] That's bondcharge.com/diary
[87:12] with code diary. You talked about being
[87:15] bold. Is that also in communication? Cuz
[87:18] as I've seen you on this book tour, it
[87:19] seems your communication has become
[87:21] increasingly more bold. I've seen you
[87:23] get up a couple of times and start
[87:25] shouting a little bit at certain things
[87:27] that pissed you off and being a bit more
[87:29] unfiltered. And I think funnily I think
[87:31] polish is actually
[87:34] >> uh detrimental.
[87:36] >> That's what I love about podcasting.
[87:37] It's so unpolished. Like I sit here in
[87:39] my [ __ ] socks and it can it just
[87:41] there's no your team's pretense. There's
[87:43] no pretense. There's nothing you said I
[87:44] couldn't ask you at all. Right. I was
[87:46] wondering if that's
[87:47] >> you've noticed that in yourself and if
[87:49] that's you think that's important.
[87:53] Right. Like, am I just like, "Fuck it."
[88:02] >> Yeah, exactly.
[88:03] >> Don't ask the question with pretense.
[88:05] >> Yeah, exactly. That's exactly what I
[88:07] mean. Are you just like, "Fuck it, now
[88:08] it doesn't matter." Cuz the book had
[88:09] [ __ ] energy.
[88:10] >> Yeah, I think there is that energy in
[88:12] the book. But just like here, but here's
[88:16] part of it that I um in writing it and
[88:19] now this is how I feel about it.
[88:22] In so many ways, I've been in the belly
[88:25] of the beast
[88:29] and
[88:31] I I feel that the consequence
[88:36] of an election for president of the
[88:38] United States impacts billions of people
[88:41] around the world.
[88:44] And yet the process can be so opaque.
[88:51] And what I also hope to do with the book
[88:53] is just lift up the hood on it so people
[88:56] could see how it runs
[88:59] and in a way that if it's for a
[89:00] journalist, if it's for a high school
[89:03] student, if it's for someone's
[89:05] grandmother
[89:08] to confirm or enlighten around what
[89:11] people think it is in a way that they
[89:14] can see themselves in their own power,
[89:16] you know,
[89:17] >> and that does require um demystifying it
[89:21] and I guess part of demystifying is yeah
[89:24] like I'm not going to hold on to oh this
[89:26] kind of thing should not be talked
[89:28] about.
[89:29] >> Do you regret running with only 107 days
[89:31] notice? Do you wish you hadn't ran?
[89:34] >> No, I don't regret running. I wish we
[89:37] had more time. I truly wish we had more
[89:39] time. I truly wish we had more time. I
[89:42] don't regret running.
[89:43] >> Had you known the outcome, would you
[89:45] have still ran?
[89:47] probably
[89:48] because
[89:52] you know one of the things that happened
[89:54] and to this day
[89:57] men and women, girls and boys come up to
[89:59] me and say there was something about
[90:02] that campaign that excited something in
[90:05] them. I can't tell you the number of
[90:07] people who have come up to me and said,
[90:08] "I decided to run for office because you
[90:10] ran."
[90:12] The number of people who have come up to
[90:14] me and said, "I decided to go to law
[90:16] school because you inspired me with what
[90:18] I The number of people who have told me
[90:21] about their young children
[90:24] who, you know, saw something and got
[90:28] excited about it and wanted to be a part
[90:30] of it. I don't regret any of that. I I I
[90:33] absolutely believe that we turned
[90:35] something on."
[90:38] In fact, I'm going to say this
[90:39] differently because it's not like people
[90:40] didn't have it in them. They had it in
[90:43] them, but there was something that those
[90:45] 107 days did to welcome, to invite, to
[90:50] grow the optimism and dare I say the joy
[90:53] that people do carry with them. And what
[90:56] I hope to do with my voice right now is
[90:58] to remind everyone,
[91:01] please don't let your spirit be
[91:03] defeated. We may not have won the
[91:05] election, but our spirit can't be
[91:08] defeated because then they really win.
[91:10] And sometimes the fight takes a while,
[91:12] right? So, I don't regret having run
[91:18] in spite of the outcome. Um,
[91:22] but I do regret that we did not have
[91:24] more time.
[91:26] >> You mean you've got more time now?
[91:28] >> Yeah. Time to do a podcast.
[91:30] >> Time to run for president as well,
[91:32] potentially. go out.
[91:33] >> I um I look at I've got two pictures
[91:35] here which I thought are beautifully
[91:36] sweet. I'll show you both of them, but
[91:38] >> Okay.
[91:38] >> I um Yeah, these these two pictures here
[91:41] of dog.
[91:42] >> Oh, my doggy. Yeah.
[91:45] >> How you know when if I was in a
[91:47] situation where the election results had
[91:49] come in and I' had that call from my my
[91:51] team saying that there's 200,000 votes
[91:53] we can't find.
[91:56] >> I think I'd probably be turning to my my
[91:58] partner in those moments.
[92:00] >> Oh, I definitely did. Talk to me about
[92:02] that. What's What role did he play?
[92:04] >> I mean, he is It sounds so corny, but he
[92:07] truly is my rock. He is um
[92:11] My husband is just fully
[92:13] self-actualized.
[92:15] He's not pretending to be anything he's
[92:17] not. He is a strong man who cares about
[92:20] his family, cares about hard work. He is
[92:23] loyal. He has a sense of humor. He's
[92:26] very encouraging.
[92:29] He's very honest.
[92:31] And you know I want that for anyone and
[92:33] everyone. I know you talk with a lot of
[92:35] people and you know about advice about
[92:38] career and all of that. for any of us.
[92:42] What I want for anyone who has ambition
[92:46] for success
[92:48] have in your life and it doesn't have to
[92:50] be a lot of people but that circle of
[92:54] people who have some understanding of
[92:56] what you're going through
[92:58] and are there when you want to laugh at
[93:02] the thing you're not supposed to laugh
[93:03] about.
[93:05] You want to use the words you don't use
[93:07] wherever you pray.
[93:10] Um the people who you know I talk about
[93:14] you know if you if you slip and fall
[93:16] they'll laugh at you and then pick you
[93:18] up and push you back out there. None of
[93:21] us has achieved success without those
[93:23] people in our lives. And it might be
[93:25] your spouse. It might be your partner.
[93:28] It might be a family member. It it could
[93:31] be anybody. But but be intentional about
[93:35] having those people in your life because
[93:38] look, this is life. There, you know, so
[93:40] cliche, they're going to be the ups,
[93:42] they're going to be the downs. It's it's
[93:43] the
[93:45] it's the beauty of living that, you
[93:48] know, it it involves the whole spectrum,
[93:50] but when you have people that can be
[93:52] with you on your journey,
[93:55] it just makes it better.
[93:56] >> Do you remember what he said to you that
[93:58] night?
[94:02] Well, he was in as much of a state of
[94:03] shock as I was.
[94:06] We didn't I have to admit, we were not
[94:08] very articulate that night.
[94:10] >> How long did that last?
[94:12] >> Well,
[94:15] not until I started writing the book
[94:18] and getting to the chapter on election
[94:20] night. Do you know that was the first
[94:22] time Doug and I talked about election
[94:24] night?
[94:24] >> Really? How how many weeks months was
[94:27] that?
[94:27] >> Months.
[94:29] We had never talked about election
[94:30] night. Never. Had never talked about
[94:33] election night. It was when I was
[94:36] writing the book. That's when he told me
[94:38] something I had no idea, which is he and
[94:42] my brother-in-law had been campaigning
[94:43] on election day in Michigan. All felt
[94:47] good. I remember talking to him and he
[94:49] said, "It feels good out here.
[94:50] Everybody's saying it feels good."
[94:52] Then on their way back to DC,
[94:56] they got a call from a friend of ours
[94:57] who was a Democrat who but who was a a
[95:00] pundit on Fox News and he was in their
[95:03] boiler room, their war room. And he
[95:05] calls Doug and my brother-in-law Tony to
[95:08] say, "What are you guys hearing? Cuz
[95:10] what I'm hearing concerns me."
[95:13] I didn't know that happened.
[95:16] All I knew was Doug went campaigning
[95:18] with Tony. I was campaigning. Everybody
[95:20] was campaigning. I had a house full of
[95:21] family. When he came back to the house,
[95:25] I knew something was like a little off
[95:27] in retrospect.
[95:30] What I didn't know is he had that
[95:32] information.
[95:34] And he had gone up the stairs to take a
[95:36] shower and pray.
[95:39] And
[95:40] I didn't know until we talked about that
[95:43] chapter because we talked about that
[95:45] night. And then I was talking to him
[95:47] about
[95:49] we always do friends and family dinner
[95:51] and I said, "Doug, remember the tables
[95:53] and do you remember who was sitting at
[95:55] our table?" And then and he said I said,
[95:57] "Remember when I gave the toast?" He
[95:58] said, "You didn't give the toast. You
[96:00] didn't give a toast."
[96:02] I said, "I did." He said, "No, you're
[96:04] thinking about one of the other events
[96:05] cuz we used to do dinners in that room."
[96:08] No, it was our friends and family
[96:09] dinner. I gave a toast. So, I looked for
[96:11] the photographs of that night and I
[96:13] found one and there I am standing giving
[96:14] a toast.
[96:16] Doug was so in his head at that point
[96:20] worried
[96:21] about what he heard from our friend
[96:23] about what Fox News was reporting
[96:26] in their boiler room. He didn't really
[96:30] experience any of that. You know, have
[96:32] you ever had those? Yeah.
[96:33] >> But you've just like something is so
[96:35] weighing on that you're not experiencing
[96:37] anything that cuz that's all you're
[96:38] thinking. M.
[96:39] >> But he didn't want to tell me that
[96:41] night. He prayed it would it was going
[96:43] to be different.
[96:44] >> In hindsight, could you tell that
[96:45] something was off with him?
[96:46] >> In hindsight, I could tell.
[96:49] >> And I um
[96:52] and yeah, and we never,
[96:56] you know, cuz we we had to function.
[97:00] We had a house full of people, family.
[97:04] the next day
[97:06] cuz we were going to go to Howard
[97:08] University's campus, my alma mater, to
[97:11] give a victory speech the night of the
[97:13] election,
[97:15] um told everybody to come back the next
[97:17] day. And so then I had to get ready to
[97:20] go and give a speech, which was a
[97:22] concession speech. And actually to the
[97:26] point of, you know, I had to reconcile,
[97:29] I would close every rally by saying,
[97:31] "When we fight, we win.
[97:33] And it was not as simplistic as well,
[97:36] you win some, you lose some. And I was
[97:38] trying to figure out how do I,
[97:40] especially for all those young people,
[97:42] how do I help them reconcile that? And
[97:44] on the way to the giving the speech, I
[97:47] wrote into the speech, well, sometimes
[97:49] the fight takes a while. But when I got
[97:52] So when we got to the when we got to
[97:53] Howard, we were in the, you know, green
[97:55] room and our family was there. So this
[97:59] is how awful I am. I'm looking,
[98:00] everybody's crying. And I just looked at
[98:02] them. I said, "We are not having a pity
[98:05] party.
[98:08] We are not having a pity party." And I
[98:10] was just on
[98:13] function,
[98:15] you know, and then it was um
[98:20] and then it was, you know, I had the
[98:23] we we ended up we had a a trip planned
[98:26] to Hawaii for vacation.
[98:30] from many many months ago and there was
[98:32] a emergency happening in the world and
[98:34] so I couldn't go and we couldn't go and
[98:36] we forgot that we actually cuz we had
[98:39] paid to rent this house and my team
[98:42] being so great they're like why don't we
[98:44] see if we can get you to go to that
[98:46] house now
[98:47] >> Mhm. And as I reflected on it, it was
[98:50] literally, it wasn't a vacation. It was
[98:51] like the oxygen mask just dropped and we
[98:53] put it on and went to Hawaii and
[98:59] some friends of ours met us there and we
[99:02] were like zombies, you know, for a
[99:05] while. It was just it was we it was a
[99:07] very difficult thing to process.
[99:09] >> Is that depression?
[99:11] >> Um, probably. I mean it's it's a it's
[99:18] there is the thing about one um
[99:22] about you know going going going going
[99:26] and then all of a sudden
[99:28] so there is that which is just your body
[99:31] is physically used to this thing that
[99:33] all of a sudden stops and I've had that
[99:35] happen every time I've run and win even
[99:38] right
[99:39] >> like what it gold medal depression
[99:41] >> right right
[99:42] >> when you win the gold medal people get
[99:43] depressed because
[99:44] >> yeah because you because you've been
[99:46] you've been functioning the whole time
[99:48] in a very competitive nature and it's
[99:51] fight or flight and it's adrenaline
[99:53] adrenaline adren surging surging surging
[99:56] and then there is the piece that is
[99:58] about
[100:00] I mean it it lasted for days which is
[100:03] almost that you know they talk about
[100:05] when people um
[100:07] lose a limb there's the like the ghost
[100:10] or the phantom
[100:10] >> phantom limb yeah
[100:11] >> right the phantom limb them and I had a
[100:14] hard time reconciling. We can't still do
[100:16] something about it.
[100:19] I had a just I I knew it's just like I
[100:23] knew I was going through the stages of
[100:24] grief. I knew, you know, so that's good
[100:27] to be able to put a label on something,
[100:28] but it doesn't mean that you don't
[100:29] otherwise experience it.
[100:31] >> You weren't helpless at that point.
[100:32] Yeah.
[100:32] >> I wasn't I was just like there's
[100:34] something there must be something I can
[100:36] do. Do you reflect on um I know your
[100:39] your mother passed away when in your
[100:41] early you were in your early 40s. I
[100:42] think she was 70 years old roughly and
[100:44] she was colon cancer
[100:48] her birthday was December 7th. She died
[100:50] February 11th. She was just 2 months
[100:52] into being 70.
[100:53] >> Is her spirit and her her presence still
[100:56] with you in these moments? And do you
[100:58] reflect on what she had be thinking of
[101:00] all this?
[101:00] >> Very much. Very much all the time.
[101:04] Um,
[101:09] she I mean I can't
[101:12] if my I you know it's funny I've talked
[101:16] to a couple people who have lost their
[101:17] parents who
[101:20] were
[101:22] who've lost them recently but whose
[101:23] parents had a similar nature to my
[101:25] mother. And one of them said to me most
[101:28] recently, she said, "I'm so glad my
[101:30] father is not alive to see this because
[101:32] it would kill him."
[101:35] I was just talking to somebody recently
[101:37] who just said that. Um, oh, my mother
[101:39] would be I'd pro, you know, it would be
[101:42] a great distraction for me if my mother
[101:44] were alive right now because I'd have to
[101:45] spend full time talking her down.
[101:48] would be,
[101:50] oh, you know, when I talked about that
[101:52] safe space,
[101:53] >> so early on when I was running for DA,
[101:55] this is when I realized I need to have
[101:57] like that core group of like that safe
[101:59] space. And I thought my mother would be
[102:01] a perfect person to be in it.
[102:04] And I realized that was a huge mistake
[102:05] on my part because my mother wanted to
[102:08] kill everybody
[102:12] and then I'd have to spend full time
[102:15] talking her down instead of dealing with
[102:18] how I needed to address a situation.
[102:25] So that's my mother's nature. We used to
[102:27] call her mommy. That's mommy's nature.
[102:29] >> She'd be so proud.
[102:30] >> Oh, she would be proud. She'd be very
[102:32] proud. She um Oh my god. So, she passed
[102:38] just before my election as attorney
[102:40] general
[102:42] and I was I took care of her when she
[102:44] was sick and we were um this is one of
[102:47] those days and there were weeks where
[102:50] she needed to be in the hospital and so
[102:54] she was I was with her in the hospital.
[102:55] She's in the bed and I was in the chair
[102:57] sitting next to her and so like I'm here
[103:00] and she's here and she was just kind of
[103:02] resting
[103:04] and she said to me, "How's the campaign
[103:07] going?"
[103:09] And she's and I'm sitting here. I said,
[103:12] "Well, mommy,
[103:14] this is truth." I said, "Well, mommy,
[103:16] they said they're going to kick my ass."
[103:19] My mother turned over and looked at me
[103:23] and smiled.
[103:27] Swear to God.
[103:29] >> She didn't say anything.
[103:31] >> She smiled like, "Yeah, let them try."
[103:35] Uh-huh. That was my mother.
[103:39] Yeah.
[103:41] >> You miss her?
[103:42] >> Oh, all the time. Yeah.
[103:44] All the time. But, you know, it's um
[103:49] here's the thing about life.
[103:53] One of the things that I've learned um
[103:57] you know it's just like having
[104:01] the things that can be it's the duality.
[104:05] The things that can be a great blessing
[104:08] and
[104:10] have a huge impact. When it's not there
[104:13] it feels like a huge loss.
[104:15] It's like you asked earlier would you
[104:17] have done it differently then? Would we
[104:20] ever say because we've experienced the
[104:22] loss of someone we love that we would
[104:24] not have loved? Never. Right. Never.
[104:30] Yeah.
[104:32] >> Thank you so much.
[104:34] >> Thank you.
[104:35] >> Um I'm not going to We do have a closing
[104:37] tradition, but I think we're out of
[104:38] time.
[104:39] >> Um I'm going to ask you anyway. [ __ ] it.
[104:40] Okay.
[104:41] >> Um the closing tradition is the last
[104:42] guest leaves a question for the next
[104:43] guest, not knowing who they're leaving
[104:44] it for. And the question left for you is
[104:45] if there was a moment in the last 10
[104:47] years you would do differently, what
[104:49] would it be and why?
[104:53] >> Oh,
[104:54] >> I mean this is quite
[104:57] the whole interview. I wrote read my
[104:59] book.
[105:00] >> Okay, we'll leave it at that. Read the
[105:02] book 107 days. um Kla Harris. It's an
[105:05] incredible book because it's so
[105:07] unbelievably honest and it's so
[105:08] unbelievably human and it lets you see
[105:10] behind a curtain one does not usually
[105:12] get to see behind which is extremely
[105:13] extremely rare but extremely
[105:15] illuminating and valuable. Um your
[105:16] career is one that has inspired me
[105:18] tremendously because you've broken down
[105:20] walls, broken through ceilings and
[105:21] continue to do that. And if anyone takes
[105:23] the time to read your book or look
[105:24] through the story of your life, it is
[105:26] irrefutable that your agenda is to to
[105:29] serve people. Thank you so much for
[105:30] giving me your time today.
[105:31] >> Thank you. I'm very very touched by
[105:32] that. Thank you. Thank you.
[105:35] [Music]
